SoVote

Feb/8/22 3:40:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at an amendment to the Canadian Constitution and the Saskatchewan Act, it is the right thing to do to work with the provinces. A collaborative fiscal federation, which Canada is, requires responsible leadership. That is what our government has demonstrated on this file by working with the Province of Saskatchewan and the official opposition and ensuring that the province's requests are listened to and acted upon. This is the right thing to do for the Province of Saskatchewan and all the wonderful people who currently reside in that province.

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/8/22 3:40:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him a general question about this correction to the outdated tax exemption. We do not oppose this, quite the contrary. However, I would like him to comment on the possibility of Quebec also enshrining certain things in the Constitution, specifically something adopted by the House in the previous Parliament that identified Quebec as a francophone nation with a single common language, French. I imagine that, if my colleague agrees with the proposal for Saskatchewan, then he also supports the Quebec proposal.

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/8/22 3:41:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I want to comment on the importance of the French language for me and my family. Since I was elected in 2015, I have taken it upon myself to learn French as well as possible, but more importantly, both of my daughters are in French immersion. French is very important to me and my family. My daughters are studying the language so that they can speak it proficiently. Speaking French is quite difficult for me. I hope it will be easy for my daughters to learn French and be fully bilingual. I will be very proud at that moment.

109 words

All Topics

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

Feb/8/22 3:42:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this motion, a dated contract signed well over 100 years ago, is before us today because the Saskatchewan legislature has brought it to our attention. The Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion unanimously, and now it requires passage in the House of Commons and the Senate. We have had the opportunity to have this discussion, and the right thing to do is support this motion in order to make a change that is probably long overdue. We are talking 100 years or so.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/8/22 3:43:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for all the work he does in the House. This is the right thing to do. Canadians sent us here to work collaboratively with all members of this House to get things done. This is, yes, long overdue. It will provide for a fairer taxation system for the Province of Saskatchewan and for the residents of Saskatchewan, and we will work with the Province of Saskatchewan to get this completed.

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 3:43:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle and I have worked together on a couple of committees, and I appreciate that he has voiced his support for this motion. I wonder if there are things that we can work together on. He just talked about taxation. The Saskatchewan government has put forward its own carbon pricing system, but it was denied outright. I was wondering if we could work together on this with a sense of decorum and friendship as well, and move it forward. I am sure the Saskatchewan government would like to hear if it could work with the Liberal government on its new environmental plan as well.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/8/22 3:44:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Environment and Minister of Finance, and our bar is very high on reducing greenhouse gases across Canada and transitioning to a low-carbon economy. If the Province of Saskatchewan meets that bar, then it would implement its own carbon pricing model, but until it does, the federal government's model will be the one in place.

68 words

All Topics

Hon. Jim Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Feb/8/22 3:45:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in this debate and to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, who have sent me back to this very special place for the third time now. I am honoured by their confidence. The transcontinental railroad plays a starring role in the mythology around the formation of Canada. Rarely is the polished history of Confederation complete without some telling of how the ribbons of steel bound us together from sea to shining sea, coming together with the driving of the last spike. Of course, there is some truth in that. However, the creation of the Canadian Pacific Railway was ultimately a political act to bring provinces into Confederation. It was also a business enterprise in a practically unfettered time that few of us here can possibly imagine. It was part of Canada’s colonial pursuit to populate the Prairies with waves of settlers pledged to the Crown, no matter that thousands of years of indigenous civilization predated them. Many agreements were made, and no doubt some broken, to make it happen. It is very important today to acknowledge that national unity through CP Rail came at a cost. The land grants to the railway and other corporate interests left out indigenous peoples. Treaties could never compare to the cultural loss of their sacred lands. There were also those who benefited from this railway. It brought people and manufactured goods in and exports like wheat and potash out. Towns and villages bustled with activity due to branch lines, and grain elevators dotted the landscape. Modern-day Saskatchewan would not exist if not for railroads like the CPR. Our commodity production and supply chains continue to depend on rail service. Saskatchewan is a landlocked province that still feeds the world because of trains. Hon. members know well the history that has brought us to this debate. It is not always as polished as some want it told, not always as idyllic as the murals in the Centre Block, but it is still important to the people and economies of our nation. There is another constitutional dynamic to this history, and we are being asked to help the people of Saskatchewan to correct an historical anomaly. In 1880, Canada and the CPR reached an agreement that included a provision known as clause 16, which exempted the CPR from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes forever. Twenty-five years later, that exemption was put into the Saskatchewan Act when the province was admitted into Canada in 1905. In 1966, the Government of Canada reached an agreement with the CPR whereby the CPR would begin paying taxes to bring the transportation legislation up to date. The problem was that the Constitution was not amended to reflect this, mainly because the Constitution wasn’t patriated until two decades later. The tax exemption was never formally terminated. On November 29, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously adopted a resolution requesting an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act and make it retroactive to 1966. If we all agree and if Canada and Saskatchewan agree on the outcome, and if we have the means to do so, it makes sense that we should seriously consider the opportunity to make the changes requested by our colleagues in Saskatchewan. A strong relationship exists between Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, a relationship we can see up close with the important work of PrairiesCan, the economic development agency formerly known as Western Economic Diversification. PrairiesCan has been a critical strategic investor in Saskatchewan’s economy, and part of the minister’s mandate is to advance Saskatchewan’s economic interests in Ottawa, the same as for Manitoba and Alberta. In the last five years, PrairiesCan approved investments of over a quarter of a billion dollars in projects to develop businesses, industries and communities across Saskatchewan. The result has been good jobs that people and their families rely on. Recent examples that add value in key Saskatchewan sectors include PrairiesCan support of the Global Agri-Food Advancement Partnership in Saskatoon, as well as the Agtech Accelerator established in Regina. Over the last two years, the pandemic created challenges for the prairie economy, but also opportunities to come together and support one another. PrairiesCan has been at the forefront of keeping businesses alive during the pandemic. Over $38 million in support has gone to 300 Saskatchewan companies and organizations from the regional relief and recovery fund. Through budget 2021, this government is continuing to make a difference by investing millions more to help communities across the province recover with new programs such as the Canada community revitalization fund, the tourism relief fund and the jobs and growth fund. We have started something important by making PrairiesCan a stand-alone economic development agency dedicated to this region, something long advocated for by members of the Liberal caucus. In addition to investing, PrairiesCan is putting a priority on convening and pathfinding for clients and stakeholders, and advocating for prairie economic interests to inform decision-making in Ottawa. The department will soon expand its footprint with new service locations in Regina and Prince Albert. Saskatchewan relies heavily on trade, and rail transportation continues to play a critical role in the economy. Because we are present on the ground in Saskatchewan, we see that CP Rail can also be a point of pride in our communities. Consider the city of Moose Jaw. It is, and always has been, a rail town. Not only is the CPR vital to Moose Jaw, but the city is vital to CP. Five hundred people work for CP there. Last April, CP named the Moose Jaw terminal as the company’s terminal of the year. It is a prestigious award that recognizes employees' high efficiency and safety standards. Let me conclude by saying that this is an important issue for the other prairie provinces as well. CP Rail has been, and continues to be, an important partner to provide efficient and reliable transportation of Saskatchewan goods to the market. It is also our duty to thoughtfully consider any historical agreement to ensure that our country’s current values align with our federal and provincial economic interests. Our colleagues in the Saskatchewan legislature argue that now is the time to amend the Saskatchewan Act, and I agree. The amendment is due a thoughtful and considerable debate, as we are doing today.

1080 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/8/22 3:53:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has it heard often, especially in the position he had under the previous Parliament when there were no Liberal members of Parliament from two of our prairie provinces. I would ask the same question I asked the previous Liberal member. Canada is divided: I hear it each and every day. Many of my constituents have reached out and suggested that Canada is simply not worth fighting for anymore. That is heartbreaking. As a proud Canadian, it is absolutely heartbreaking that this would be the attitude of many Canadians. My question is very simple. Will the member, in the spirit of collaboration that we found with this initiative, work with the opposition and other prairie members of Parliament to try to bridge some of the divides that are taking place across our country?

139 words

All Topics

Hon. Jim Carr

Feb/8/22 3:54:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I appreciate the question especially in light of the private member's bill I just introduced in the House, which would actually mandate and encourage co-operation among all levels of government, indigenous communities, the private sector and its employees. During this pandemic, we learned, among many other things, that Canadians expect governments to be aligned and to work together toward a much better conclusion than partisanship and bitterness lead to. Yes, I am with the spirit of the hon. member's question.

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/8/22 3:55:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will try again to get an answer to my question. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion. In our view, it is reasonable to correct the anachronism. However, if a western province can enshrine something in the Constitution, Québec should be able to do so as well. That seems logical to me. Earlier, I asked one of my colleagues whether he agreed with what we voted on in the previous Parliament, specifically that Québec wants to enshrine, in its part of the Constitution, the fact that it is a francophone society with a single common language, French. Logically, my colleague should agree with that. Does he?

119 words

All Topics

Hon. Jim Carr

Feb/8/22 3:55:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the beauties of Canadian federalism is its flexibility. In a nation as diverse in its geography as its linguistic makeup, we all know how important the French language is, not only in Quebec but all over the country. Some of my children have graduated from French immersion, which has really enriched their lives. The key answer to the member's question is the flexibility of our federalism, which is proved all the time.

77 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Feb/8/22 3:56:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre spoke about the role that Canadian Pacific plays in some Prairie communities with some admiration. At the same time, this company has been in court for 13 years arguing that it should not have to pay taxes, and in fact that it should get the taxes that it has already paid back from the people of Saskatchewan. Could the member help me square these two facts?

74 words

All Topics

Hon. Jim Carr

Feb/8/22 3:57:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact that matters most is that the government is committed to fair taxation. We also understand that there are many transportation issues that face prairie Canada, including Saskatchewan. If we look at air service, train service and bus service, especially in smaller communities, we know there is an awful lot of work to be done, and it must be done because transportation is an essential element of how we keep the country together.

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 3:57:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I love talking about taxation and the fairness of taxation, especially in the transportation sector. One thing we have heard from Saskatchewan residents is that the Saskatchewan government has put forward an environmental plan very similar to that of the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It was dismissed outright by the current government. I know the member was the former envoy to the Prairies for the Prime Minister. I am wondering this. Could the member talk about some more things we could work together on, such as the environmental plan Saskatchewan delivered? Hopefully he could speak to the Prime Minister about accepting that plan from the Saskatchewan government.

114 words

All Topics

Hon. Jim Carr

Feb/8/22 3:58:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that the governments of Saskatchewan and Canada can work together on using the federalism that we know, and maybe even being creative about the federalism we aspire to move into for our children and beyond. That is a spirit and a commitment to collaboration to align the priorities of our governments, and that would include four or five areas where we would immediately agree there has to be more collaboration than there has been in the past. I am committed to that, and I look forward to working with the hon. member.

98 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Feb/8/22 3:59:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I am splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West. We know that the strength and unity of our Canadian federation is at the heart of today’s debate. Anybody who has been following the debate knows that has been the common thread. Our collective pursuit of fair treatment for every and any Canadian province will only serve to strengthen our Canadian federation. In matters of taxation and in all matters of its own governance, the Province of Saskatchewan should be entitled to the same authority as other provinces in this country. From following the debate today, we know that the Canadian Pacific Railway’s position is that it is exempt from certain provincial taxes in Saskatchewan, based on an agreement struck in 1880 and included in the Saskatchewan Act. It will ultimately be decided by the courts. However, the House has the opportunity, and I believe an obligation, to support the Province of Saskatchewan in its effort to achieve a permanent resolution to this matter. The Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously passed a motion to address this inequity. Saskatchewan has moved to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, which contains this exemption. The province has made a clear ask to the federal government and to the members of the House: We have been asked to pass the necessary motion and to do so as quickly as possible. The member for Regina—Lewvan presented the House with the opportunity to do just that this past December. That motion presented the House with the chance to swiftly show unanimous support for the Province of Saskatchewan’s resolution. It would have offered tax fairness to my province of Saskatchewan. The unanimous adoption of that motion would also have affirmed the principle that Canadian provinces can amend sections of the Constitution that deal exclusively with their own internal governance. That is a principle that my Conservative colleagues and I believe to be fundamental to unity and to the functioning of our freedom. Not surprisingly, it was very disheartening that the Liberal government blocked that motion. As we revisit this matter today, I implore my colleagues in this chamber to respect the will of the Province of Saskatchewan. The case to repeal section 24 is straightforward and, I would say arguably, obvious. It is outlined quite clearly in the motion itself. First, it is simply unfair that Saskatchewan is unable to impose taxes on a company operating in its province, while other provinces have the authority to impose similar taxes on that same company. The date that Saskatchewan entered our Canadian federation should not limit its ability to levy provincial taxes. Provinces in our federation must have the same jurisdictional authorities. If members of the House truly view Saskatchewan as an equal partner in our Confederation, there really is no room to question the removal of section 24. This section limits the jurisdictional authority of our province in a manner that is not applied to other provinces. The Province of Saskatchewan has clearly expressed its opposition to it. On that alone, I would suggest that the motion being debated today should have the support of every member of the House. Above and beyond that point, there is also the issue of tax fairness within the province. If CP, a large, profitable, national company, is not required to pay taxes in Saskatchewan, it places a greater tax burden on others. Businesses operating in our province, and the hard-working people of Saskatchewan, are paying their fair share, so why should CP not pay its own fair share? Saskatchewanians should not be responsible for paying a single cent of tax revenue owed to the province by a profitable corporation. This exemption also places CP at a competitive advantage within the province. By upholding section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, other transportation companies operating in the province of Saskatchewan are placed at a competitive disadvantage, as they are not afforded the same exemptions. With respect to the rationale of a provincial tax exemption to this railway company, the justifications for a tax exemption that existed long ago no longer apply today. As highlighted in the motion we are debating, it is important to note the Canadian Pacific Railway company agreed to relinquish this tax exemption in 1966 in exchange for federal regulatory changes. These regulatory changes benefited the company and were made by the government of the day. As I have said before, I believe the case to support this motion is straightforward. I also want to add that in the current political climate, it is an important marker to demonstrate to the people of Saskatchewan that they are an equal partner in our federation. Recent years have been particularly difficult for my province of Saskatchewan, as our people and our economy have repeatedly suffered at the hands of the Liberal government’s political agenda. Certainly, I know Saskatchewan is not alone in that respect. The reality is that since coming to power, the Liberal government’s agenda has largely failed to respect the interests of Saskatchewanians. The Liberal government has, on a number of occasions, failed to truly work in partnership with the province. The Liberal carbon tax that continues to be imposed on our province is a prime example. The carbon tax unfairly punishes rural communities like the ones I represent. It is why my province, as we heard throughout the debate, presented a made-in-Saskatchewan plan to protect the environment that recognized the unique regional realities of our great province of Saskatchewan. The Liberal government rejected it and went so far as to reject a second plan proposed by our province that was modelled on another province’s existing policy. These actions speak volumes to the people of Saskatchewan, just as the Liberal government’s repeated attacks on our Canadian energy sector do. It is a main economic driver in our province and in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster, and the government’s policies that favour international foreign imports of energy over our own Canadian energy are, to put it politely, quite insulting. Whether it is the costly carbon tax, inaction or a failure to stand up to trading partners, our agricultural sector, which is another main economic driver in our province, has also suffered tremendously at the hands of the government. We would be hard pressed to find any Saskatchewanians whose lives and livelihoods have not been negatively impacted either directly or indirectly by these Liberal policies. The Liberal government has caused division and stoked the flames of separatist sentiment. The growing disunity is a cause for serious concern. We only have to take a few steps outside of the House of Commons to get a sense of the growing fractures in this country. We cannot ignore the fact that this is the context in which we are having this debate today. Fortunately, the motion before us is in the opposite spirit. The passage of this motion will serve to strengthen our Canadian federation. It is incumbent on any federal government to seek to unify our great country, and our federation will undoubtedly be strengthened by this motion, as it would affirm Parliament’s respect for provincial jurisdiction. Every province should have the ability to unilaterally amend the section of the Canadian Constitution that deals solely with its own internal governance. By respecting the will of the Province of Saskatchewan in this matter, the passage of this motion would recognize Saskatchewan as a true equal partner in our federation. Whether it is British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador or any province in between, every province should be afforded the same jurisdictional authorities. In this outdated taxation matter, this motion would do just that for the province of Saskatchewan. It would also ensure that a profitable, national company like Canadian Pacific Railway pays its fair share instead of creating a greater burden on the backs of hard-working Canadians living in Saskatchewan. Repealing section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, and by helping to unify and strengthen our country, it is also in the interests of all Canadians. I fully support the motion before the House that respects the will of the Province of Saskatchewan, and I implore every member of the House to do the same.

1402 words

All Topics

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

Feb/8/22 4:09:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to start off on a positive note, all members on all sides of the House are recognizing the importance of what the Saskatchewan legislature did in passing a unanimous motion to deal with something that has been around for well over 100 years. It is about time, and we are glad the Saskatchewan legislature has led us to the point where we are today by passing that motion back in November. My colleague across the way made reference to the price on pollution. In that reference, she somewhat implied that she opposes a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as she refers to it. The Conservatives were originally against it and then they were for it, under the previous leadership. Are we to believe now that the Conservative caucus is once again against it? Have the Conservatives done a triple somersault on this particular issue?

148 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/8/22 4:10:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague across the way for giving me a chance to reaffirm my record. Anybody who looks at the record in Hansard will see my position on a carbon tax. It is ineffective and makes life more expensive for Canadians. The member opposite would know that I have always been against a carbon tax. It does not work in rural Canada, especially in a landlocked province where every commodity or product that is produced has to be shipped out. One great way to reduce pollution is to look at pipelines. They take our oil and energy off the rail line, which gives us an opportunity to put our agricultural commodities on there. This was mentioned earlier by another Liberal colleague. It would feed the world.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/8/22 4:11:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and something is bothering me, specifically the rather jovial unanimous agreement we have reached to rescue Saskatchewan, which wants to keep the $341 million. I cannot help but compare this to more acrimonious debates. When it comes time to help Saskatchewan, to amend the Constitution to help a western Canadian province, everyone is on board, everyone is pleased, everyone is happy. When it comes time to help Quebec, however, which would like to amend the part of the Constitution that concerns it, things get more complicated. We saw this in the spring, when the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion seeking recognition for Quebec as a nation with only one official language, French. Nine Liberal members abstained; they had better things to do. They went for a walk or a smoke, but they did not vote. Does my colleague not think that we have a double standard?

159 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 26