44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/8/22 4:26:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, something struck me earlier in my colleague’s speech.
We are studying a motion to recognize the constitutional amendment requested by Saskatchewan to make a company, Canadian Pacific, pay the taxes it should pay like any other good corporate citizen.
However, in my colleague’s speech, most of what he said was about how important he thinks oil transportation is. I am trying to understand whether he thinks that rail transportation has other, more valuable and more important purposes than transporting oil.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 6:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I liked my colleague's measured and unifying tone.
I find it interesting that we are debating a constitutional matter and that the debate is a rather jovial one. I guess talking about the Constitution is not so bad after all. It is possible.
I would like to know whether my colleague would be just as open to the claims Quebec might make at a future time.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 6:20:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I got out of my colleague's speech was that he thinks it is important for us right now to look ahead, review the legislation from the 1880s that exempted Canadian Pacific from taxes, assess its relevance today and what benefits it might bring to the public, and then amend it as needed.
I think this is necessary, absolutely, and I think that everyone in the House agrees. I find it fascinating that we are debating amending a constitutional text that today is putting people at a disadvantage and making them unhappy, leading them to call for an amendment.
I want to ask my colleague about another potential constitutional amendment. In 1867, the British North America Act was passed, imposing a constitutional order on Quebec. The same thing happened in 1982, when another constitutional order was imposed on Quebec, an order that Quebec has never supported or endorsed. To this day people in Quebec are calling for change and openness.
I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that the existing constitutional framework is satisfactory, compared to the old one, given our present demands and needs. Does he think it has been adequately adapted? If not, how does he plan to address this?
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
