44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:53:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is amazing to hear one of my Liberal Party colleagues say that we must absolutely respect an agreement from 1880 and possibly amend it, while also asking us to respect the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec has never signed. The Liberals have never openly admitted that Quebec was betrayed on the night of the long knives.
Today we are being asked to talk about an agreement that was made in 1880. We are being told that it would not be a big deal to amend the agreement, when in actual fact it would require a constitutional change.
When Quebec wants to talk about its independence and the Constitution, the Liberals are the first to stab it in the back, like they did in 1982 when 74 members from Quebec, who were present, voted in favour of patriating the Constitution.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:55:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is what we call teamwork. I thank my colleague from the NDP for that very important question.
Let us not forget that in the last budget the government said it would address tax evasion. It seems like the Liberals have been talking about that for decades. They say they will address tax evasion because they are good Liberals.
In the meantime, there was the sponsorship scandal, the lack of compliance with the Canada Elections Act during the referendum, and they have never addressed—
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
