SoVote

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/22 1:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in a very real sense, I believe that all provinces are equal here in Canada. I will stand up and debate that on any day of the week. Having said that, I recognize that this is something that is important to the Province of Saskatchewan. It is more than just symbolic, and it is the right thing for us to be doing at this point in time.

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/8/22 1:23:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's very important speech today. I want to delve a bit into the UC motion in question that came about in December. As my friend knows, the Province of Saskatchewan passed this legislation on November 21. The UC motion came to Parliament in December, and this is the first time we are having a debate. I know the member has been a parliamentarian for many years. In terms of Parliamentary practice, how important is it to have a debate on an issue as important as the Constitution?

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/22 1:24:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would highlight that those who want to get a better understanding and see the actual resolution that passed in the Saskatchewan legislature can always go to the Saskatchewan legislature's website. If they look at the Saskatchewan Hansard for November 29, they will find the debate and the vote that took place, which clearly indicated that the motion was unanimously passed by that legislature. It was a somewhat shorter debate, but there was a debate and an explanation and so forth provided at the Saskatchewan legislature, and one would expect that, because it is a constitutional change. I believe that we need to revisit the way we use unanimous consent motions. Without any hesitation at all, I think we should never pass a UC motion that deals with the Constitution, given the importance of our constitutional law.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC)

Feb/8/22 1:25:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. It has been kind of a history lesson here today. We have heard about the Hudson's Bay Company, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. It has been refreshing to go back over 100 years today as we talk about the Saskatchewan Act. I give credit to the member for Regina—Lewvan for bringing this very important motion to the House today. I chair the Saskatchewan caucus and, for the second consecutive election, we returned 14 out of 14 Conservative MPs to the House. It is very important that we open the dialogue today to have a wholesome discussion on the Saskatchewan Act and what it means to my province, which has a population of 1.2 million. When we see CP Rail's profit of $341 million, I do not have to say that $341 million to a population of 1.2 million is a very substantial amount. We can start way back on October 21, 1880. I am going to give some history, as there has been many history lessons in the House this morning and this afternoon. It was the Government of Canada that entered into the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which we all know back then was trail-blazing. It opened this country up from east to west, part of that was Saskatchewan. In clause 16 of that 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway company, and that is what we are talking about here today. In 1905, as everyone knows, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created my home province of Saskatchewan. Canadian Pacific Railway has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established. That has been a topic of conversation today, but I want it on the record that it has paid taxes to the Saskatchewan government. CP is currently attempting, though, to use a clause in the Saskatchewan Act as justification to avoid paying any provincial taxes on its main line. This represents, as I said, an enormous revenue loss for the provincial government and the people of Saskatchewan, which only 1.2 million strong. It is only fair that CP, as a corporate giant, pays its share, on which I think we all agree in the House. In 1966, Ian Sinclair, then the CP Rail president, agreed to a constitutional amendment to eliminate this tax exemption. The constitutional change is the quick and efficient way to make this happen, and it should happen without delay. The Province of Saskatchewan has adopted the motion to amend the Saskatchewan Act and the Constitution of Canada during the fall sitting. In December, the Saskatchewan Conservative regional caucus urged the federal government to support the Saskatchewan government's approved motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. Section 24 of the act contains a contentious exemption for Canadian Pacific Railway from various Saskatchewan provincial taxes. In order for this section to be removed, though, a similar motion must now be passed at the federal level, here in the House and also in the Senate. That is why Canada's Conservatives are calling on the federal government to listen to the Saskatchewan government and support the motion that we have put forward today in the House to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. The tax loss to Saskatchewan would hurt provincial services if the Liberal government refuses to stand up for tax fairness and ensure that CP Rail pays its fair share to the people of Saskatchewan. CP Rail, as I mentioned, is a corporate giant. There is no reason it should enjoy an exemption from provincial taxes. There is also no reason the government should delay responding to the provincial government's request. Canada's Conservatives are always on Saskatchewan's side. Those tax dollars need to stay right at home in my province of Saskatchewan. CP Rail and the Saskatchewan government have been engaged now for about 13 years in a legal battle with the railway seeking roughly $341 million. It is coming out now because the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan passed a motion unanimously on November 29, 2021. In Saskatchewan legislature, just to fill us in, there are only two parties. The Saskatchewan Party is the official government and the official opposition is the NDP. Here we have the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP agreeing on one thing, that the Saskatchewan Act has to come to the House of Commons and later to the Senate. I have spoken to the Saskatchewan justice minister, Gordon Wyant, a couple of times, dealing with the Saskatchewan Act. The Saskatchewan justice minister was quoted as saying, and I quote, “We are going to vigorously defend the claim that has been brought by the railway to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan”. This resolution needs to be approved by the federal government, passed through the House of Commons right here in front of 338 members, and then on to the Senate. Minister Wyant has had conversations, I know, with the federal justice minister on the issue of the Saskatchewan Act. We are hoping today that the motion will move forward. It is my understanding that several MLAs in my province have even reached out to Saskatchewan senators to start the dialogue. If we can pass the motion through here, it goes to the Senate. The conversations have started not only here today in the House of Commons, but also, more importantly, in the Senate where they will have to deal with this. As members of the House are likely aware, CP Rail is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for the $341 million. They claim a broad tax exemption under section 24. This matter is currently before the courts, so most of us really do not want to talk about that, because it is before the court. Therefore, the Government of Saskatchewan believes that today it is time to repeal section 24 regardless of whether it is in force or not. If the tax exemption remains in force, I do not have to tell the members of the House, it creates a substantial inequity within our own province. $341 million would be eliminated from the taxes of only 1.2 million in our province. As a matter of the tax policy and business competitiveness, there must be a level playing field for all businesses in our province of Saskatchewan. We all agree that all businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, and by supporting this motion, it would send a strong signal to my province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewanians desperately want the motion today regarding the Saskatchewan Act passed. It would show federal support from that side of the house and the opposition parties. It would show that we do care about the province of Saskatchewan. This is an important motion put forward today by the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. He was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature before he became a member of Parliament. He knows very well the pressures on the provincial government in Saskatchewan. He was in their caucus for a number of years and he knows first-hand that Saskatchewan, being a small province, does not have a lot of corporate businesses. CP Rail is one of the biggest, and as has been mentioned today, it makes a lot of profit. Profit is good, but at the same time, CP Rail must pay its fair share of taxes. On behalf of residents of Saskatoon—Grasswood, it has been a pleasure to speak to the motion moved by the member for Regina—Lewvan on the Saskatchewan Act.

1320 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/8/22 1:35:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood that the Saskatchewan caucus in our party is absolutely supportive of this motion, and of course, our government is supporting this going forward. I do want to ask the member about the Senate. I know there is an independent group of senators in the Senate. What kind of measures and discussions has the opposition had with senators to get this through the Senate?

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Waugh

Feb/8/22 1:35:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from across the aisle. We are here today in the House talking about the Saskatchewan Act. It would be premature for many of us to reach out to any of the senators. However, I can tell the hon. member there has been discussions from MLAs, maybe a couple of the MPs from Saskatchewan too, and our only Conservative senator in the Senate. We have five senators from Saskatchewan. They have signed a letter of intent. I have not seen that letter, but before Christmas I understand they did sign the letter and that is the first step moving forward in the Senate.

111 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/8/22 1:36:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we agree that Saskatchewan should get its due from Canadian Pacific, because it has been owed for a long time. As I was saying earlier, Canadian Pacific received free land and tax exemptions, among other benefits. Furthermore, I hope someone has been in touch with the Senate, and that no one in the other place has a vested interest in Canadian National that would make it possible for CN to avoid paying taxes in Saskatchewan. I hope everyone in the Senate realizes that these taxes are owed to the people. CN has had enough benefits.

97 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 26