SoVote

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

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/8/22 5:39:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his historical reminders complete with quotes that are indeed shameful in this day and age now that we have zero tolerance for racism. I would like to ask him a question. Today's debate takes us back to a time when the federal government was the board of directors for the Canadian bourgeoisie. Are things fundamentally any different now? Consider the fact that the government did not dare confront web giants that were not paying taxes here or force them to support our local journalists and media. Consider the fact that the Liberal government has been dragging its feet for years and is doing nothing to crack down on tax evasion and the use of tax havens. Given all that, can we really say that things are fundamentally any different now than they were then?

145 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Feb/8/22 5:40:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent questions and for sharing his thoughts on the matter. We could add other companies to that list. Today, we are talking about CP, but we could be talking about CN and the self-regulation of railway companies. We could also talk about the air sector. In Canada, we have a hard time distinguishing the corporate interests of big Canadian business from the interests of the people. That may be because it is a small world or because the elites, the executives and some politicians are just too cozy with one another. The best example of that is refunds for Air Canada tickets cancelled because of the pandemic. A corporation like Air Canada was be too big to refund customers, too big to be forced to do what was being done everywhere else around the world. For example, various European governments, the U.S. and many other countries asked airlines to refund their customers because no service was provided. That is just one example. We could also talk about oil companies. In this country, it seems like there is one select group of big corporations whose interests always take precedence over those of the people. That is clearly very problematic, but it is also baked in to how this country operates.

225 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/8/22 5:42:01 p.m.
Watch

What a pleasure to see you again, Madam Speaker. I think this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address you in the chair, and it is a great privilege. Once again, congratulations on your appointment. Before I begin, I would like to thank the hundreds of people in Quebec and the rest of Canada who have expressed concern via Facebook, email or phone about a member of my family in Lac-Saint-Jean who got COVID‑19 last week. I want everyone to know that my daughter, Jeanne, is doing well, and that is because she is vaccinated, as many others have pointed out. I wanted to share that with you because I know you were worried, Madam Speaker. Never in a million years would I have missed an opportunity to talk about the Constitution and the taxation of a billion-dollar corporation. As a separatist, I think this offers another wonderful perspective on what Canada is, namely, a state built on railways and run by the wealthy, a state lacking in long-term vision. It is a boring version of Ticket to Ride, a board game that my family and I play. Any mothers and fathers here must be familiar with this game. I see that some of my Conservative colleagues are nodding. Canadian Pacific is claiming that it is entitled to a tax exemption under section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. Canadian Pacific has been paying taxes for some time. However, now it is saying that it never gave up its right to the exemption and it is asking for a refund of $341 million in taxes. The tax exemption for Canadian Pacific would not be so ridiculous if it had not taken Parliament 142 years to consider doing away with it. In 1880, the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway required significant investment and generated little revenue. It is true. I am not saying differently. However, Canadian Pacific has been a profitable company for far too long. As my colleague said a few minutes ago, CP made a $2.85-billion profit in 2021. There is no reason why it should be exempt from paying taxes. It goes without saying that it should pay taxes, just like any other company. Throughout Quebec and Canada, SMEs are either struggling to make ends meet or falling short, especially in these difficult times. It is almost indecent to see what is happening. We can no longer let this happen without doing anything. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois supports the Conservative Party motion. In fact, we are especially pleased that this will shed light on what the sovereignist movement has been trying to make Canadians understand for decades: the Canadian Constitution is outdated. We have also been trying to tell Canadians for a long time that the Constitution Act of 1982 is inconsistent with the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. It makes no sense for Saskatchewan to have to go through Parliament to tax a railway company. Constitutional amendment via opposition motion is definitely not the norm, but it would set a great precedent. It would prove that Quebeckers are not the only ones who can see that it is not working and it is all out of whack. No conversation about Canada's Constitution would be complete without a mention of the elephant in the room: Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution. Thirty years ago this year, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission found that the constitutional status quo was unacceptable for Quebec. We had two choices: a complete overhaul of federalism that would give Quebec the legislative and fiscal autonomy crucial to its development as a nation, or independence. Thirty years later, none of the issues have been resolved. The second option, independence, would be the most beneficial to Quebeckers. The federal government is constantly sweeping the dust under the rug with its empty rhetoric, so much so that talking about the Constitution has become taboo. The status quo, meanwhile, has become a reflex. Back to the subject of trains. Although not up there with the fate of a people, this is nonetheless the second time in a year that a western province has demanded changes to the Constitution. Just before Saskatchewan, Alberta held a referendum about requesting constitutional talks on equalization. The Bloc Québécois noted the result of Alberta's referendum and was open to having discussions. That is still the case today. The Canadian Constitution is anachronistic, outdated and obsolete. The distribution of powers and resources is completely dysfunctional and incompatible with Quebec's status as a nation, which the House has recognized several times. That is also the very essence of a confederation. If today's motion eliminates the taboo about it, all the better. Civilized people can have a conversation, as we are seeing today. Better late than never, and I hope that Quebec will come into its own and that the House will be invited to become a preferred partner of Quebec. In any event, I am going to keep a close eye on what my NDP and Liberal colleagues are going to do. If the motion were to be adopted, it would be the first time that the Constitution is amended as a result of an opposition motion. Think about it. My father was an opposition leader during a period like the one we find ourselves in, but he never even dreamed that this could happen. All joking aside, the adoption of today's motion would be a first and would afford Quebec some exciting opportunities. Since 1982, Quebec’s powers have been limited by the Canadian Constitution against its wishes. Quebec never signed it. All attempts at constitutional reform to allow Quebec to sign have failed. Quebec rejected the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 because it was not enough, and the rest of Canada rejected it because it was too much. All this to say that a matter of trains or a national issue in Canada is a constitutional matter. If we are talking about trains today, we could be talking about Quebec soon, I hope. Today, the House of Commons is discussing Saskatchewan’s constitutional status. It cannot keep pretending that the Quebec nation issue does not exist. We can all see that, by putting an end to the constitutional taboo, the Conservative motion is a potential step forward for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports it. Saskatchewan has the right to tax CP as it sees fit because the train passes through its territory, just as Quebec has the right to have the autonomy it needs to control its own social, economic and cultural development and what passes through its territory. However, I would like to point out that it would have been legitimate for Saskatchewan to amend its constitution itself without going through Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois would have recognized that right without hesitation. Provincial governments have every right to make decisions about their future, in particular the Government of Quebec, which did not sign the 1982 amendment; only English Canada did. I will say it again. Saskatchewan’s legislature adopted a constitutional amendment motion on November 29 to revoke section 24 of its constitution. I am very open-minded, and I defer to the legislators in that province, who surely know what is best for them. Let us make it easier for them. Lastly, I hope that my Conservative friends will have the same open mind when, one day, Quebec drafts a motion on its constitutional future and the Bloc Québécois, perhaps, tables it in the House.

1298 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 5:50:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments my colleague put on the record, and I thank him for his support of the motion going forward. I do have kids and I have played many games of Ticket to Ride. We have more in common, my Quebec colleagues and I, than we think. Another thing we have in common is a respect for provincial jurisdiction. I thank the member for the support. Premier Moe called for an increase in health funding, so that is another thing Quebec and Saskatchewan have in common. Given the constitutional amendment, are there other areas where the current Liberal government has let Quebec down? We probably have more things in common than we expect. Could he put some of those on the table so we can learn more about each other?

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Feb/8/22 5:51:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his extraordinary question, but I do not have enough time to answer, because it would take me at least half an hour. I will name one that is obvious these days, namely health transfers. That is something concrete. The federal government’s job right now is simply to transfer health payments to Quebec and the provinces. That is all we are asking. We are not asking it to set conditions. We are asking it to do its job. According to the health act of 1962, the federal government was to pay 50% of healthcare costs. We are asking only for 35%. That is a concrete example that anyone can understand. The premiers of the territories, the provinces and Quebec are unanimously calling for this, as are more then 90% of the people of Canada and Quebec.

147 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 26