SoVote

Feb/8/22 12:40:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think everyone is in favour of everyone paying their fair share. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to decide what everyone's fair share is. In terms of offshore tax havens, I think that warrants more than a little investigation from the CRA to see if some loopholes can be closed. As for profiting during the pandemic, I think it is a good thing that some companies owning a brewery or distillery retrofitted their factories to make hand sanitizer or other PPE. I certainly do not want to disincentivize entrepreneurs who have responded to the pandemic in a positive way.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Feb/8/22 12:41:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard so many questions about nothing coming from the government side on this, which confuses us. Where does the government stand on this very fair and just motion? What did the member gather from the government's position on this important motion?

46 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Kram

Feb/8/22 12:41:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps some of the members on this side of the House should be in government someday. Then we could get this matter taken care of. My understanding is that all parties will be supporting this very reasonable motion, and I hope that applies to the Liberals as well.

50 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/8/22 12:42:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the word “unprecedented” can be overused for emphasis in this place, but I do believe that this is how we can describe the challenges we are facing as a nation at this time. For some context, 60% of Canadians report that they are not confident in their ability to feed their families. Inflation has hit a 30-year high, with no end in sight and no resolve from the federal government to help lower it. Housing prices have skyrocketed, with a yearly housing inflation rate of 26% and a staggering 85% rise since the Prime Minister took power. Families rang in the New Year with an increase in their CPP tax, leaving them $700 poorer this year at a time when they need it the most. Now is the time to address the affordability crisis. A concrete measure that the House can take right now would be to ensure that all Canadians are treated fairly in the taxes that they pay. That is why I am very proud today to stand alongside my Saskatchewan colleague and others to debate this issue of tax fairness. Conservatives are asking the House to adopt a simple motion to enact the decision made by all members of Saskatchewan's legislature last November. It would amend the Saskatchewan Act to ensure that CP Rail is obligated to honour its tax burden, just like every other large corporation and small business operating in the province of Saskatchewan. This sounds simple and like something that our tax-and-spend Prime Minister would certainly be in favour of, so why is there the need today for this debate? It is because even with all the economic pain Canadians are facing, the government is continuing to divide Canadians by the region in which they live. Our motion was brought forward late last year but was denied by the Liberals. The hard-working, innovative and resilient people of Saskatchewan are tuned in to this debate and are expecting a change of heart in the government benches to allow us to pass our motion for the benefit of the whole province. Just last month, the member for Regina—Lewvan brought forward a straightforward motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, a clause dating from 1905 that exempted CP Rail from income, sales, fuel and capital taxes associated with this historic main line. Saskatchewan believes that a mutual agreement between its government and CP Rail in 1966 put an end to this tax agreement in exchange for favourable federal legislation that improved the rail line. CP Rail disagrees and is now suing the Government of Saskatchewan in order to recover taxes it claims were levied unconstitutionally. The decision of all elected MLAs in Saskatchewan, taken in November, was clear. On November 29 of last year, the legislature unanimously passed a motion in favour of repealing section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. By extension, it fell on our federal Parliament to do the same. That is why the member for Regina—Lewvan put forward his motion just before the Christmas recess. Sadly, the Liberals rejected our motion, refusing to let it pass at that time. Provinces have the right to amend respective sections of the Constitution when rights and freedoms or the welfare of their people are in play. When Alberta sought to enshrine rights and land titles to its Métis communities, that province took action to amend its constitution in 1990. In 1996, in order to codify internal procedures of its legislature, B.C. adopted the B.C. Constitution Act. Between 1876 and 1968, Quebec, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces all abolished their legislative upper houses, requiring the blessing of our national Parliament. In multiple times in the past, Alberta and B.C. have established and then abolished multi-member electoral districts by amending their constitutions. In all these instances, the federal House and the Senate recognized the right of these provinces to amend their constitutions and acted accordingly. On this side of the House, Conservatives will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces, including the ability of an individual province to unilaterally amend the section of the Constitution concerning its internal governance. In this case, it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in our province. It is vital that every participant in our economy be able to compete and contribute on a level playing field. I am honoured to represent the people of Yorkton—Melville, where gems of sustainable and innovative ideas are present in the DNA of how we mine our resources, grow food for Canadians and the world, and manufacture products that are shipped worldwide. One example is Failure Prevention Services, whose plants and offices are in Watson, Saskatchewan. Their advanced filtration technology systems are second to none, and they have developed filters for the oil and gas industry that can be cleaned rather than thrown away. Now they are developing similar technology for train locomotives. I also want to mention Evraz, a wonderful top-of-the-line pipeline builder of the very best pipeline in the world. They manufacture 75% of their pipeline from recycled steel. Saskatchewan has so much to be proud of, and we are contributing to the economy of this whole nation in ways that are sustainable and that we are very proud of. My Saskatchewan colleagues and I are so proud of the work ethic and determination to succeed in small and medium-sized businesses, charitable organizations, corporate industries and the mosaic of people who live, work and play in our province. No one in this place is attempting to diminish the vital work of CP Rail to serve our remote and rural communities and get Canada’s goods to market. We know how crucial those rail lines are to moving our wheat and the other products that we grow or manufacture in our province. Conservatives will continue to promote and protect our national railways as one of the only common threads that link our country together. I agree with my colleague from Regina—Lewvan, who asked the question about pipelines, that there should be more, but the rail line is a system that has served us well through thick and thin since the earliest days of Confederation, and we need to sustain it. We need to do more than that. I would love to see it done properly, with another railway across our nation. We need to work to develop more ways of bringing our products across the country to our shorelines and then to the world. When it comes to fairness and affordability for everyday Canadians, this House needs to know just how uncompromising Conservatives are, and I thank my leader and our party for this opportunity to be here today to focus on Saskatchewan and support the action that the legislature of Saskatchewan has taken for tax fairness for its citizens. That is all that we are asking for. There is no reason that a Canadian company should enjoy a permanent exemption from certain provincial taxes and cast that tax burden onto the residents of my province of Saskatchewan. I do not understand the silence, the quietness of the sitting federal government in this regard. It talks about being here for all Canadians and having an all-of-Canada approach, and today it has an opportunity to stand up with the people of Saskatchewan, with the government and all of the players in the Government of Saskatchewan to support this motion in the House of Commons. I certainly expect that we are going to see full support across the benches in the House today. We are simply asking for this House to honour Saskatchewan's attempts to ensure all businesses and residents are treated fairly by this corporation. I know that the people of Saskatchewan are watching today and are certainly expecting that we will do our due diligence and responsibility and pass this motion today in our House.

1366 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/8/22 12:51:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I had indicated previously, my understanding is that the motion will pass. I am anticipating that it will pass. At the end of the day, I was taken by the member's comments. It was in November when the Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion unanimously, and then a couple of weeks later, on the floor of the House, a UC motion was used to try to actually change the Constitution. Does the member feel that the debate we are having today was necessarily warranted? Did we really need to have a debate on an amendment to the Constitution?

101 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Feb/8/22 12:51:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that this issue could have been dealt with much more quickly than it has been. Am I pleased that we are discussing it in the House of Commons today? Yes; as a matter of fact, I see it as an opportunity for the Liberal Prime Minister and members of that caucus to come out and say some really good things about a province that they even today seem to spend very little time reflecting on in a positive way. I would say to the member that today would love to hear more from him and from his colleagues in regard to supporting Saskatchewan, why they value Saskatchewan and why it is important to pass this motion.

121 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/8/22 12:52:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, naturally I find the idea of opening the Constitution and finally discussing the taboo of opening the Constitution extremely interesting. It made me think. Canadian Pacific enjoyed tax breaks, free land and so forth for many decades. What about now? How many other companies have advantages that we know little or nothing about? Does my colleague believe that it would be a good thing to study this issue so that no other taxpayer has to go through what Saskatchewanians are currently experiencing?

84 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Feb/8/22 12:53:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that CP has been paying its taxes and that this is a blip in the dynamic that has caused us in Saskatchewan to do what needed to be done. Unfortunately, back in the day, as one of our colleagues indicated, there used to be more of a sense of accepting responsibility. I believe this took place initially with a handshake and not with the proper paperwork being done, so it is good that this is happening today. As far as other corporations are concerned, I come from a province and a riding that depend a great deal upon larger corporations to set the stage for a lot of the things that take place in production, mining and manufacturing. I just want to give a shout-out that I am aware of the taxes that are being paid. I am also very aware of the sense of responsibility to community and the incredible investment that those organizations are making in Saskatchewan, so I would like to see—

172 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/8/22 12:54:29 p.m.
Watch

Let us give time for one more question at least. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

18 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/8/22 12:54:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I know her area of Yorkton—Melville well, and of course all of Saskatchewan has good people. I have two questions for the member. First, why, when the Harper government was in place, did the Conservatives do nothing about this? This change is long overdue. We are supporting the motion, but why did the Harper government not act? Second, given that the Harper government put in place massive tax loopholes that have contributed to what we lose every year now, with $25 billion in taxpayer money going to overseas tax havens, does the member believe that these massive loopholes were a mistake that led to many of Canada's most profitable corporations not having to pay any tax at all?

129 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Feb/8/22 12:55:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have gone quite a while without having to hear the Harper word in the House of Commons. In this case, I will just say that this particular motion that has come to the House has come from the Government of Saskatchewan, which is doing its due diligence in making that change. As far as the tax havens go, I am greatly disturbed by their existence. I believe there was a fair amount of fallout at one point with the current Liberal government when the number of connected individuals who were using tax havens was discovered. I certainly think there is a need to clean that up.

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/8/22 12:56:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to first address the challenge put forward to me by the member for Yorkton—Melville. She wanted me to show how I can identify with the province of Saskatchewan. I am a Prairie boy. I spent a number of years living in Saskatchewan, albeit I am a Bombers fan over a Roughriders fan. Unfortunately, I have family members who are Roughriders fans over the Bombers, which I suspect goes back to the time I spent growing up in Saskatchewan with my siblings and others. Saskatchewan is a beautiful province. Much like with all regions of this country, I would say to my family and friends that Ottawa does care when things are happening in Saskatchewan. Whether they are constitutionally related, employment related, regarding the environment or even something such as charges on pollution, all of these things matter and they are issues we take very seriously. The government has always been open not only to what people are saying but also to listening to what other parliamentarians have been saying. I thought that is where I would start today. There has been reference made to this unanimous motion request put forward back in December, and I was one of the individuals who said, no, I did not think we should allow, through unanimous consent of the House of Commons, something to pass through related to a constitutional amendment. I looked at what happened in the Saskatchewan legislature, where the issue was debated. There were comments put on the record with regard to it, and I want to share some of those comments with members today. I know some people were upset when I indicated that passing a constitutional amendment through unanimous consent without any debate whatsoever in the House of Commons was not an appropriate thing to do. That is the reason I said no back in December. As I indicated in my remarks, I will be supporting the motion that was brought forward. Since the unanimous consent was requested back in December, I have had the opportunity to become better informed. I understand there has been outreach from MLAs in the Province of Saskatchewan to ensure and provide a sense of comfort to members on all sides of the House regarding why they put in the request. I want to go right to the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature, where we saw a minister highlight why we are in this situation. Mr. Wyant said, “As members of this House [the Saskatchewan legislature] are likely aware, CPR is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for $341 million, claiming a broad tax exemption under section 24.” He went on to say, “As a matter of tax policy and business competitiveness, there must be a level playing field for all businesses.” He goes on to highlight what I believe is a very important point, and this is one of the reasons I am very surprised a lawsuit would have even been launched. I do not want to get into the legal proceedings that much. The courts will do whatever the courts will ultimately do on the issue. However, Mr. Wyant continues to say: ...it’s our view that the Canadian Pacific Railway company agreed in 1966 that it would forgo the tax exemption in exchange for regulatory changes made by the federal government. The federal government upheld its end of the agreement by making those regulatory changes which provided significant benefits to the CPR. It’s now time to ensure that our Constitution reflects that reality. He makes it very clear that during the mid-sixties there was a discussion that took place where CP, the province and the federal government, either directly or indirectly, engaged in a discussion about the constitution of Saskatchewan and the impact of the clause that we are debating today. The consensus and agreement going out of that meeting saw the residents of Saskatchewan and, in fact, all Canadians, ensure that CP would maintain payments or pay their fair share of taxes back then. For those people who might be following the debate, I do believe it is important to recognize that, since that agreement between CP, Saskatchewan and the federal government, there has been a payment of taxes. That agreement was entered into in good faith. Earlier in the comments, I read that there is a lawsuit for $341 million, which is a significant amount of money coming from a corporation. That makes me question what caused the launch of the lawsuit. Some may question why, in 2022, we are debating this today. Members will get a better sense of that if they look at the November 29 Hansard from the Saskatchewan legislature, where there was a resolution that was unanimously passed. I just want to pick out two things from it because it is a fairly lengthy resolution. The first of the two aspects of the resolution that I want to highlight for members is that it states: Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established in 1905.... I do not know all the taxes that CP has been paying. Hopefully there will be a response from CP or someone else as to why it is that the court action has been taken, but it is important that we recognize, as this resolution states, that since 1905 the railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan. The other thing I want to highlight is where it states: Whereas on August 29th, 1966, the then president of the Canadian Pacific Railway company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the board of the Canadian Pacific Railway company had no objection to the constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption.... That is why I make reference to the fact of this agreement. CP was not looking to receive benefits from the tax exemption. In fact, it goes on: The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29th, 1966, and is retroactive to that date. That is, therefore, the resolution coming from the Saskatchewan legislature. Appreciating the fact that it passed unanimously, Mr. Wotherspoon from the New Democratic Party makes reference to the Saskatchewan Act and makes it very clear in his explanation stating: This is why as the official opposition Saskatchewan New Democrats, we’ve called for the repeal of section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, 1905 and why we are proud to stand united as a legislature to send this motion for approval to Ottawa, the House of Commons, and the Senate. If members are interested in the details and content of the resolution, it can be found in the Hansard of the Saskatchewan legislature of November 29. Suffice to say, it passed unanimously. When I look at the Constitution of Canada and the constitutional debates, I do not believe we should, through unanimous consent motions, pass a constitutional amendment. I do not say that lightly because, while I like to think I am still relatively young, I have had some experience with constitutional amendments. First it was as someone sitting in front of the TV back in 1982 watching our then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau sign off, along with Her Majesty the Queen, on the Constitution of Canada and bring in the Charter of Rights, which was instilled in me as a very proud moment at that relatively young age but also did a lot to bring Canadians together and instill a sense of pride. Not much longer after I had witnessed that, I was inspired to get engaged in politics in a more tangible way and had the good fortune of getting elected in 1988. Those who are familiar with constitutional change and amendments and attempts would know that in 1988 we had the Meech Lake accord. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature when it was the only province to not sign on to the accord. Back then, because of the holdup in the Manitoba legislature, I believe the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador withdrew its original support of the Constitution. I remember the significant protests that took place both inside and outside of the legislature, and why indigenous people in particular felt empowered to a certain degree through Elijah Harper to ensure that the national and provincial governments of all political stripes understood why there was an issue with the Meech Lake accord. If we fast-forward from that experience to the 1990s and the Charlottetown accord, I had the good fortune, or bad fortune depending on how one wants to look at it, of being around for that debate. I remember having a debate in the north end of Winnipeg with a member of Parliament who was speaking against what I was proposing. It was Bill Blaikie, the former member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona and the father of the current member. In that debate I said I disagreed with Mr. Blaikie and that, in fact, the national government had a role to play in housing in Canada, because the Charlottetown accord, among other things, tried to give the direction that housing was an entirely provincial responsibility. There were a number of us, including me, who felt the federal government had a role to play with respect to national housing. I find it ironic today to hear the comments from the members of the opposition saying that we need to do something on the housing file, when the Prime Minister has clearly demonstrated a strong cabinet commitment to national housing through the national housing strategy, with hundreds of millions of dollars coming from Ottawa to support housing. For example, even Bill C-8, legislation that we were debating, has a direct impact on housing. This is why I say that constitutional issues are important to all of us. However, sometimes constitutional changes can be all-encompassing. They can consume a great deal of time and effort and they are very difficult to achieve, which is why, when I look at governments from the past since the Charlottetown Accord, I do not believe that the mood of Canadians is to see constitutional change at this time. I do not believe that Canadians want us to be focusing on constitutional changes at this time. That said, as has been pointed out, there are different ways in which a constitution can be changed, and the type of change we are talking about today is very different from what we have talked about in the past. Members of the Liberal caucus understand and appreciate that the Saskatchewan legislature has passed a unanimous resolution. We understand why the timing of it is so critically important today, even though it was enacted over 100 years ago in an agreement that I will provide some comment on shortly. However, the point is that as things take place in Saskatchewan, we understand the need for the federal government to respond, and today is a good example. Someone mentioned earlier today that this is an opposition motion. Well, just because it is an opposition member's motion does not necessarily mean that it does not merit passage in the House of Commons or support from the government. That is why the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me indicated that the government would in fact be supporting the motion. We recognize that in the last election, as in the previous election, Canadians said they want Parliament and parliamentarians to work together, and where we can, we do. We do work together when there is that higher sense of co-operation, and we are seeing that with respect to this motion. On other issues related to this motion, there is the issue of tax fairness. This issue was brought up consistently by my New Democratic friends in particular, to try to give the false impression that members of the Liberal government do not support tax fairness. That is so wrong. One of our very first actions in government was the Prime Minister's commitment to tax fairness. He brought in legislation to put a tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Ironically, my New Democratic friends voted against it. We have had not one but two budgets in which hundreds of millions of dollars were allocated to try to ensure that those who are avoiding paying taxes, including big business, are held to account. We are investing more in Revenue Canada. I do not need to be told that my constituents want and demand tax fairness. We as a government, through our cabinet and with the support of the Liberal members of caucus, and I suspect even at times the support of opposition members, have brought in initiatives to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness in Canada today.

2150 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/8/22 1:16:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would love to dig back on the Riders and the Bombers, but that is not the focus of my question. When this unanimous-consent motion was brought to the House by the member for Regina—Wascana, he indicated that it was after discussion with the other parties. Now, there was discussion in the House last week when that term was not used and the individual simply said “I hope that you will find unanimous consent”, but discussions were had, I know. My question to the member is this: If he felt that there needed to be debate, and the Minister of Finance also gave us an answer on why the Liberals said no, why did they not just have that as part of their discussion and not have the fanfare in the House of Commons when they came out against the motion?

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/22 1:17:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the question. I really can. Often members will stand up after question period and say, “There have been discussions”, but to imply that there have been discussions does not necessarily mean that there was consent. When a member stands up after question period and says, “There have been discussions”, we should never make the assumption that it means there was consent to agree to the motion. I think we do need to take a look at that particular rule in general. The very first time I heard about that particular motion to any real degree was at the time it was actually being moved, and I sit on the House leadership team. There might have been something taking place during question period, but during question period it is fairly hectic. I would have been more sympathetic, but I still would have suggested a day of debate, at least, on the issue.

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/8/22 1:18:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the passionate speech given by my colleague from Winnipeg North. There were some real gems in it. For example, he said that he was proud of the fact that Mr. Trudeau had united Canadians and made them proud. I am not too sure about that, since the average Quebecker remembers 1982 as the year the federal government betrayed them. The same is true for the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, which the member also mentioned. These are two occasions where the federal government expressly denied Quebec any recognition. Those were two outright denials of Quebec. My colleague claimed that Canadians were not in the mood for constitutional change at this time. I recognize that we are in a pandemic. I am not crazy and I completely agree with him. However, does he not think that having a nation within Canada that has never signed the Constitution is a problem? Would he want to be forced into a marriage? Would he go along with it? There is an easy question for him.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/22 1:19:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I reflect back on 1982, I would have loved to have seen all provinces sign on to the Constitution. As much as I reflected on my personal history with the province of Saskatchewan, my heritage was actually rooted very strongly in the province of Quebec for many generations. In and around just south of Montreal is where my family originated. Many people living in Saskatchewan today all came from the province of Quebec. There are very passionate, strong feelings from many of my friends and families, who want to make sure that Quebec, like Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions, remains a part of the Canadian family. We have far more in common—

115 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/8/22 1:20:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

7 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/8/22 1:20:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard this member talk about the NDP voting against the Liberals' omnibus bill when they were going to impose some taxes, a very small amount, on the 1%, but they failed in that bill to make sure that Amazon, Google and Facebook would pay their fair share. They failed to close tax havens and end CEO stock loopholes. We have a health care system that is starving right now. We have seen corporate taxes go from 28% to 15% under the Liberal-Conservative coalition to protect the super-wealthy. Will my colleague start telling Canadians the truth? They promised not to table omnibus bills, but they did, and then they misled Canadians through this story that they are taxing the super-wealthy. Will he work with the NDP on closing tax havens, ending CEO stock loopholes and making sure the ultra-rich and super-wealthy corporations pay their fair share?

154 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/22 1:21:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me tell the member the truth. When I was an MLA in the Manitoba provincial legislature, the NDP continuously, on four, five, or maybe as many as seven occasions, reduced corporate taxes. At the same time, there was a need for health care funding and better management of services. As far as trying to portray the New Democrats as the only ones who fight for tax fairness is concerned, I would suggest that the member might want to do a Hansard search of the Manitoba legislature, where he will find that I was critical of the NDP for its taxation policy, which was not always advantageous to Canada's middle class.

114 words

All Topics

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Feb/8/22 1:22:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Liberals have taken the time to have discussions with their colleagues over on the other side of the House to ensure that there is a good understanding about what the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan was requiring and asking for. Would the member agree with Saskatchewan's Minister of Justice that repealing section 24 in the Saskatchewan Act would cement Saskatchewan's place as a truly equal partner in the federation?

79 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 26