SoVote

Feb/8/22 4:58:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I send my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the young woman that the member opposite spoke about. Rail safety is of key importance to our government. We will absolutely continue to work with all members in this House and with all communities to ensure that the safety of citizens is paramount. I look forward to the continuing conversation.

63 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Feb/8/22 4:58:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, which is right beside the riding I represent and home to Canada's most notorious member. I am very happy to see our first Conservative motion in 2022 dedicated to my home province of Saskatchewan, the land of living skies. It is an even greater honour for me to speak on its behalf today. It is another reminder of where I come from and who sent me to Ottawa in the first place, so in my first speech since the last election, I will first take a moment to thank the constituents of Cypress Hills—Grasslands for their support. It is always humbling to receive their trust and to serve as their representative in this place. I also have to say I would not be here without my family's love and the support they have shown me throughout my time in office, and of course I could not go without mentioning the many volunteers who have also helped to get me here as well, and board members who have also worked very hard on our local EDA. Today, the official opposition is calling for the federal government to finalize a process already started by Saskatchewan in managing its own affairs. Back in November, the provincial legislature voted unanimously to amend the Saskatchewan Act under the Constitution. Since then, what remains is for a constitutional amendment to be authorized by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. In other words, the House and the other place will need to pass it. It might seem like a simple housekeeping item, and it could be handled as that, if the government so chooses, but that does not mean this is not a priority. It can be resolved easily and quickly, but only if the Liberals are willing to do it. Instead, the government House leader waited for the last sitting day in December to say there would have to be a take-note debate in February. I hope all my colleagues here can see and appreciate how much time has already passed by and added up with this task we have taken on. We have not even started talking yet about passing anything through the actual parliamentary process. Of course, I can only hope the legislative agenda and procedure will run smoothly whenever that time comes. If not, how long is it going to take after it finally gets started? In a minority Parliament we have done some good work through collaboration among all parties, and there is no reason for it not to happen here again as well. If the House leader's plan is to have a take-note debate, which still sounds good enough to some people, I will draw their attention to what the guide on parliamentary procedure has to say about it. Take-note debates “solicit the views of Members on some aspect of government policy and allow Members to participate in policy development, making their views known before the government makes a decision.” Of course, the government can and should ask for input from different parties in Parliament. To be frank, I wish the Liberals did it a lot more often for developing policy and making decisions. This country would be much better for it. Hopefully this will become a new habit for them, but it is a bit confusing to see it happening on this file, if we should even really call it that. What policy are we developing, exactly? Are the government members signalling that they have not yet even made a decision on what they are going to do about it? Are they going to oppose the amendment from Saskatchewan? If they are going to decide to authorize this change, why bother with a process that is supposed to be open to different options? If they somehow are trying to drag this out for some reason, it certainly seems like they are, but why? Would they take the same approach if the former member for Regina—Wascana was still in cabinet? I could say more about that later. First, I want to focus on what is happening in Saskatchewan and in my riding. Apart from historical arguments, we can plainly see a situation in which a large railway company has not only tried to get out of paying taxes, but has tried to get taxpayers' money back after paying tax for decades. If this happened, there would of course be a huge business advantage over smaller competitors, but what is good for one company is not necessarily good for the market as a whole. When we consider everything together, it is not as surprising as it might sound that the Saskatchewan Party and the provincial NDP voted for the same motion. They have significant differences, but they share consensus here, because the case is closed. As with so many other things, there are real benefits if we promote competition and smaller local businesses. In this case we are dealing with short-line operators. They highly deserve a shout-out in this discussion, as well as our thanks and substantial support. My riding is home to two of them: the Great Sandhills Railway and the Great Western Railway. They have strengthened and served their rural communities very well. I have heard that 90% of a particular company's operating budget goes back into the rural communities where they are stationed. As one example, when Great Sand Hills bought its line in 2009, there were only seven employees there. Deciding to start with nine employees, they have since increased to 60 people. The positive effects of their investment and success on the many communities along the line they operate are undeniable. Business is growing, where larger operations without having a special connection to a place are more likely to let certain locations simply fade away, as is tragically the case with many small-town communities across this country. As a result, people can find more jobs now. They can buy homes and they can support local charities and initiatives. They can create or maintain their way of life in rural Canada. Short-line railways are proving to be efficient, environmentally responsible and safe, while at the same time reducing burdens on publicly funded transportation. What is not to like? These railways need all the help they can get to continue on with their important work. Knowing the current Liberal government, the answer might turn out to be that this all has to do with just Saskatchewan. For two elections in a row, the Liberals have failed to win a single seat in our province. The message from voters has been absolutely clear. Something is probably wrong with a national government that fails to connect to and win support from an entire region within our great country. It is nothing for the Liberals to be proud of, and it never should be ignored. However, in so many obvious ways over the years, the Prime Minister's team has shown that it will prioritize petty politics over what is best for Canadians. It is definitely not a way to gain anybody's support, if the Liberals will keep treating our province disrespectfully. The Liberals will often interfere with our provincial government's attempts to improve the lives of our citizens, whether it is declining a better rebate for the carbon tax or unfairly attacking the delivery of health care services during the federal election. Even though this might seem like a minor issue compared with other ones, it is a good opportunity for the Liberals to start treating Saskatchewan with respect. They should show us some goodwill and courtesy by delivering something for the betterment of our province. We really have to wonder if the Liberals would be handling this issue in the same way if it were another province trying to make a constitutional amendment. There is no limit to the favours the Liberals will give out to their supporters. That is precisely the opposite of responsible leadership. That is why, as a Saskatchewan caucus representing every part of our province within the official opposition, we are leading the charge here in Ottawa. We are calling for the government to resolve this issue sooner rather than later. It really does not have to be so complicated. It does not have to be very difficult. Let us get it all done. We have a good spirit of collaboration happening here today. My message to all the members across the aisle, and to the other opposition parties, is let us get this done. Let us do what is right for Saskatchewan, and let us show that we are willing to work in the best interests of the provinces here in Ottawa.

1483 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/8/22 5:07:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have been focusing on Saskatchewan, and the member has been mentioning that he wants Ottawa to be more involved and more supportive. I wonder if the member could comment on the success of the supercluster in Saskatchewan, the plant protein-based supercluster. I have a personal interest because I am a vegetarian, and one of my favourite snacks, chickpeas from Saskatchewan, comes from Three Farmers. Can the member comment on how that has gone? That was a great joint collaboration between the federal government and the provincial government.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/8/22 5:07:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great that every now and then we see some successes from some government programs, and we can clearly say that is one really good example of success. There have been some other issues. We saw the government hand out lots of money to a multi-billionaire from the U.S. to create a pulse-processing plant in Saskatchewan. I do not think he necessarily needed taxpayer money for that. Generally speaking, though, what the member has referenced here is a good thing, and if we are spending taxpayer money, I would like to see more targeted investment to make sure we get the best possible result for Canadians.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/8/22 5:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask was raised briefly by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert a little earlier. Members are unanimous on Saskatchewan’s request, which seems very reasonable to us all. However, how is it that no one seems to realize that one of the country’s provinces has not signed the Constitution we are talking about? This is not news, it dates back to 1982. I find it odd that that does not bother anyone but us, and I would like to understand why.

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/8/22 5:09:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was not alive in 1982. I was not born until 1987, but I wish I could have lobbied a little more for all the provinces to sign on to the Constitution. I think we would be willing to hear and see Quebec do so, but a Conservative government would be more than happy to work with all the provinces, regardless of whether they had signed the Constitution or not, to make sure that all provinces are treated fairly within a united Canada.

86 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/8/22 5:09:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the heart of the issue is, of course, around tax fairness. We are seeing a situation dated long ago with a big corporation, CP Rail, able to get a tax exemption. As it stands today, big corporations are able to get all kinds of loopholes and preferential tax treatment from the government. It is time, I believe, and the NDP strongly believes, that we close all these tax loopholes, and big corporations should no longer be able to get away with not paying their fair share of taxes. Would the member agree that we need to close all the tax loopholes for big corporations, including the loopholes in which they can stash their money in offshore accounts?

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/8/22 5:10:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we want to make sure that tax dollars for Canadians are respected. We want to make sure that businesses are paying their fair share, of course, but in the same breath, we also want to make sure that we find the right balance between incentivizing growth and job creation by these corporations to make sure that their money stays in Canada. We can look at some specific, targeted measures to make sure that those dollars are staying in Canada, and I am all for taking a look at that.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC)

Feb/8/22 5:11:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, having been born in Regina, I consider myself an honorary Saskatchewatonian. In my riding of Essex, Line 5 is very much threatened, and about the only way we are going to get new oil, if we do not have a pipeline, is going to be on rail cars and/or transport trucks, which will be a massive issue. The member spoke about getting grain up for the local farmers, and the member from across the way spoke about automotive issues, which I have in my riding as well. I wonder this. Does the member feel the same about the issue with regard to the pipeline itself?

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/8/22 5:12:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The safest and most environmentally responsible way to transport oil is through pipelines, and we need to see more of that. Again, it would help free up rail capacity to ship other products that are essential and critical and that cannot be shipped any other way. We can also avoid disasters such as we have seen with incidents in Lac-Mégantic.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 5:12:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak to our motion to advocate for the rights of the people of Saskatchewan. This motion is especially important to my riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, as we are a major rail hub for not only CP but also for CN Rail. I am not a native of Moose Jaw. I came to Moose Jaw as a pilot in training with the Royal Canadian Air Force. When I moved to Moose Jaw, prior to leaving Bagotville, Quebec, where I was doing on-the-job training in a fighter squadron, I was told that I would meet a girl behind every tree. The problem is that there were not a lot of trees in the area of Saskatchewan I was going to be in. My wife is 5'11”, so she is as tall as a tree. When we walk down the street, I have to hold my hand up, and it looks somewhat pathetic. I married up. This motion is especially important in my riding. The history of the rail line being built in our city has a connection to Moose Jaw's notorious past. The Soo Line was a direct line linking Moose Jaw to Chicago. Everyone knows that during Prohibition, Al Capone hid out in the tunnels of Moose Jaw while trying to escape from the heat. When I say heat, I mean law enforcement. As I am sure everyone here is aware, many towns across the Prairies were developed along the rail lines. Communities popped up all across western Canada, and many flourished. These communities became trading posts where people, farmers in particular, were able to bring their goods to market. These railways helped transport not only raw materials, but also value-added agricultural goods. Some may know that in 1910, Robin Hood in Moose Jaw had the largest flour mill in all of western Canada. Also relevant to my riding and others in Saskatchewan, rail is used to transport potash, which is a necessary component of fertilizer. This product is sent globally, using the railway to both east and west ports. Ethically produced energy, used as fuel, is also transported. It is essential to helping Canadians getting out of the pandemic and getting back to work. Obviously, there is also food, both raw and processed. We are the breadbasket, and we have given the world the gift of canola. Moose Jaw is a major transportation hub, having two major rail lines and highways No. 1 and No. 2. Clearly, this issue is of local, provincial and national importance. What we need to look at is co-operation by recognizing the province's authority and request. Rail companies have always been good corporate citizens and partners with our communities. As we have heard throughout today, the issue at hand is an outdated agreement and Saskatchewan's right to tax companies operating within its borders. The parties have been engaged in a 13-year legal saga, with CP Rail seeking over $300 million in taxes that it has already paid. This has gone on for far too long, and we need to find a resolution. CP contends that it is exempt from various provincial taxes based on a contract struck over 140 years ago. This was before Saskatchewan was even a province. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan contends that the exemption ended in 1966, when CP's then president rescinded the deal in exchange for regulatory changes. It is not disputed that CP paid taxes for over a century. The issue to be determined at trial is whether the company was legally obligated to do so and, if not, whether it is entitled to a return of the money paid. This past November, the Saskatchewan justice minister, Gordon Wyant, put forward a motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, which contained this exemption. This motion received the unanimous consent of the Saskatchewan legislature. As members of Parliament, we should all be supporting unanimous decisions dealing with provincial rights. I would like to ask the people of the House to imagine something. Imagine a company with a market cap of $66 billion. Should that company pay its fair share in taxes? Then, imagine that same company turns around and sues the federal government for taxes it has already paid in the past. The lawsuit is not for excess taxes paid but for all taxes paid. Their market cap is higher than companies such as CIBC, Bell or the outfitters for our Olympic athletes, Lululemon. On a side note, it would be prudent for me to wish good luck to Moose Jaw's own Graeme Fish, who will be racing for Olympic gold later this week in the 10,000-metre race, and good luck to Ben Coakwell, who is part of Canada's four-man bobsled team. I would also like to extend my thanks to all the other Canadian Olympians for their efforts. I am sure that everyone in this place would agree that this company should pay its fair share of taxes. That is what we are asking for, a fair share. However, as we have all heard today, that is exactly what is in the courts right now in this legal battle. In support of the province's unanimous motion and to recognize its provincial autonomy, my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, put forward a motion in this place to finalize the process at the federal level. It is important to remember that at this point this motion has led to unanimous support of every politician in Saskatchewan, every provincial MLA from both sides of the aisle and every federal MP from Saskatchewan. I am asking the House to show that same solidarity and respect Saskatchewan's rights. Excess red tape like this will hurt any jurisdiction's ability to be competitive. I understand that the provincial and federal justice ministers have discussed this issue and I trust it will receive a speedy resolution. This is not complicated and it is not partisan. In recent days and recent weeks, Canadians have been looking to their elected officials to improve the tone. They are asking us to open up dialogue. They are asking us to look for ways and things to unite us. They are asking to be recognized and valued. Above all, they are looking to us to show grace to one another and a spirit of humility. In that spirit of humility, I am asking the House to support this motion today and recognize Saskatchewan's equal place in Confederation. I offer thanks for the chance to speak to this important motion, and I look forward to questions.

1123 words

All Topics

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

Feb/8/22 5:22:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier this morning, we will in fact be supporting the motion. I just want to highlight very quickly what was said at the Saskatchewan legislature by the minister responsible. I quote specifically the motion, which says, “Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established in 1905”. I think it is important that we not try to give any sort of impression that it has not been paying taxes. My understanding is that it has been paying taxes. It is unfortunate that how this lawsuit came into being has really forced the issue. Again, here is another quote from the minister from Saskatchewan. He said, “As members of this House are likely aware, CPR is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for $341 million, claiming a broad tax exemption under section 24.” There is a need for us to make the amendment and indicate to the Province of Saskatchewan that it has the full support of the House of Commons.

179 words

All Topics

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Feb/8/22 5:23:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I also have a quote from the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, Mr. Gordon Wyant: “We're going to vigorously defend the claim that's been brought by the railway to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan.” I thank the member very much for the olive branch and his comments. I look forward to the member supporting the motion that has been brought forward.

69 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/8/22 5:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a bit of history and stories. I always like to hear the stories and real-life experiences of members in the House and their constituents. I want to ask the member about the opportunity to activate other tax loopholes. Is the member aware of any other tax loopholes or havens that CP Rail could activate to avoid fair tax payment if this motion passes through the House and the Senate?

77 words

All Topics

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Feb/8/22 5:24:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point of this conversation and dialogue is to talk about Saskatchewan's place in Confederation and to recognize its entitlement to make a decision on businesses that operate within its borders. It should be a fair share of tax, not overtaxing or undertaxing. As for her question, I am not aware of any other loopholes, but this agreement was struck over 140 years ago. It needs to be updated and that is what we are trying to bring light to.

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Feb/8/22 5:25:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really liked one of the points my Conservative colleague raised in his speech, when he said that this motion addresses Saskatchewan’s place in Confederation. What I find interesting is to see how calm and serene the debate is. Everyone appears to be saying that the answer is obvious and that we will support them in their demands. How is it that people do not react that way when Quebec makes constitutional requests?

77 words

All Topics

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Feb/8/22 5:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague that I know his doppelgänger. He lives in Moose Jaw. I know his identical twin. He is on my EDA board. Every time the member stands, it freaks me out a bit. I would like to get a selfie with the member, if he does not mind. This is important to Saskatchewan. We believe in a strong Confederation and in a strong nation of Canada. Making a stronger Saskatchewan makes a stronger Canada. That is what I am speaking about today. That is what we are discussing and that is the opportunity before the House.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Feb/8/22 5:26:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for allowing me to speak here today. I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He too will have something to say. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that this is the first time I have had a chance to deliver a speech here since I was elected in 2021. It is now 2022, but the 2021 session was too short to give me this opportunity. I would therefore obviously like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for their trust. This is the third time they have placed their trust in me, and I am immensely grateful. I will continue to work as hard as I have in the past to stand up for them in Parliament and make sure their voices are heard. The motion before us today was moved by the Conservatives and relates to a constitutional amendment. It is interesting because I think this is the first time that a constitutional motion from an opposition party will be adopted or voted on. It sets a precedent. This is important to note because the Bloc Québécois might want to make similar proposals in the future, and we hope that they will be as welcome as the motion moved by the Conservatives has been so far. This is a very popular subject in the Bloc Québécois. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to speak on these constitutional issues, because I think everyone in my party would have liked to address this subject. We could talk about it for quite some time. The motion before us deals with a somewhat trivial issue that everyone essentially agrees on. That is why I think today's debate should go a little further. I do not mean to be reductive by using the word “trivial”, because I do not think it is trivial for a company worth billions of dollars on the stock market to sue a government simply because it does not want to pay taxes. In 2021, CP reported $2.85 billion in profit, $21 billion in assets and $8 billion in sales. This company would like a tax rebate of $341 million. I find it very reprehensible for a company to have such business practices and for it to say that it is going to shortchange a government. The company was created with assistance and funding from just about everyone in this country, but today it is changing its mind and declaring that it owes nothing, but that it is owed money by Canada. These are reprehensible practices and I hope that CP will answer to the public for that. I do not see how this type of attitude can be defended. Canadian Pacific has history. For those who do not know, one of the company's founders was a certain John A. Macdonald, a father of Confederation and Conservative MP. This shows how the constitutional file, Canadian Pacific, the creation of Canada and the motion we are studying are all tied to one and the same person, John A. Macdonald. Incidentally, I am always surprised every time my House of Commons colleagues extol the virtues of John A. Macdonald. I get the sense that it comes from a place of either hypocrisy or ignorance, but I think it behooves us to dig a little deeper into who he was. This is the perfect opportunity to point out some aspects of his life that tend to be ignored or that my colleagues from other parties may simply be unaware of. John A. Macdonald was not just one of the fathers of Confederation. His face is everywhere. Every time we pull a $10 bill out of our wallet, there is his magnificent likeness, reminding us of his tremendous historical significance, which I in no way dispute because it is most certainly true. In fact, most Quebeckers remember him for one specific reason, one famous quote, words every single Quebecker is familiar with, except maybe the former heritage minister, the member for Ahuntsic-Cartierville, who said how amazing it would be to learn about his vision. Maybe she was unaware of his vision for Quebec. There is a great quote about the hanging of Riel that left a lifelong impression on me even though I was not even born yet. The Métis uprising coincided with the construction of the CPR, the famous coast-to-coast railway. The Métis wanted to assert their presence, make themselves heard, be respected and advocate for their rights. John A. Macdonald was Prime Minister at the time and the founder of the famous CPR. Maybe the definition of conflict of interest then was not the same as it is now. Macdonald's answer was to send in the army and crush the Métis, a people who were living in peace and harmony. The Métis were a people of mixed origins, descended from francophones from Quebec who went exploring out west and indigenous peoples, who were living in peace and asked for nothing more than to be able to continue living in peace. The answer to that was to send in the army, crush them, nearly exterminate them and treat them like traitors. There were several stages, but at one point the Métis appointed Louis Riel as chief to represent them and defend their claims. They even elected him to Parliament, but he never made it to Parliament because he was an outlaw. He never set foot here. It is rather incredible. Canada's prime minister at the time, John A. Macdonald, was so fed up with Riel that he had him arrested and sent to prison. He then ordered that Riel be hanged. In Quebec, this caused an uproar. They were going to hang our brother Louis Riel, who fought for the rights of francophones, Métis and indigenous peoples, who just wanted to live in peace. Macdonald's response was to say that Louis Riel “shall hang though every dog in Quebec bark in his favour”. I think it is important to repeat this so that it is recorded in the proceedings of the House and remains for posterity: “Riel shall hang though every dog in Quebec bark in his favour.” What a source of Canadian pride. Of course, his shining record is about more than just how he treated and viewed Métis people and Quebeckers. He also did all sorts of nice things, like banning people of Asian and Mongolian origin from voting. It is quite obvious that he had an inclusive vision and wanted to work with everyone to make a better world. This founding father of the Canadian Confederation, Mr. Macdonald, also had great appreciation for American slave owners. He once worked as a lawyer for the Confederates, who held him in high regard. He also had a very high opinion of Black people and Africans. In 1885, Mr. Macdonald said these fine words: If you look around the world you will see that the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics. It is not to be desired that they should come; that we should have a mongrel race; that the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed by a cross or crosses of that kind. Let us encourage all the races which are cognate races, which cross and amalgamate naturally.... But the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful; it cannot be, and never will be. These words were said by the founding father of Canada. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House and those on this side who glorify him and his accomplishments will learn about the man behind Canadian Pacific, this founding father. If I were them, I would be ashamed. This is not unlike our struggle to get Quebec's claims heard. If they learned one thing from Mr. Macdonald, let it be that. Every time Quebec calls for a constitutional amendment or asks for something, people start to freak out, and I do not get it. I am probably out of time, but I would be happy to come back and talk more about this.

1433 words

All Topics

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

Feb/8/22 5:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments from my friend. One thing Quebec and Manitoba share in common is a passion for Louis Riel. For many years I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, and when I would look in the backyard of the Manitoba legislature building, I would see the Louis Riel monument. There is also his gravesite in Saint Boniface, which is a wonderful, flourishing francophone community. We owe a great deal of who we are today as a nation to the Métis nation and President David Chartrand. My question takes a look at CP. It played a positive role to the extent that it connected Canada. It is important for us to recognize that it has been paying taxes. Ultimately, this amendment will remove an aspect of the Saskatchewan Act that needs to be dealt with, which was amply explained during the debate in the Saskatchewan legislature. I would like to get clarification on the Bloc's perspective. I understand its members support the motion, as we do.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Feb/8/22 5:38:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague opposite pointed out, there is no reason for us to oppose this logical request. Every company should pay its taxes, just as everyone else does. As for the other part of my colleague's question, I would like to come back to one point. My colleague mentioned that he is from Manitoba. I had the opportunity to visit Winnipeg and the St. Boniface region in Manitoba, and I was very saddened by what I found there. Going there was kind of a pilgrimage for me. In previous speeches, my colleague opposite has often mentioned that he is from Manitoba and proud of Louis Riel. I am surprised and disappointed to see that he does not have a stronger interest in the French language and that he cannot speak that language in the House, even though he has francophone ancestors.

147 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 26