44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/8/22 10:26:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:45:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague's approach to dealing with what is a serious issue. Whenever a provincial legislature takes an initiative, it is appropriate that the government respond, no matter what its political stripe, in whatever way it can. There is also a responsibility to gain a full understanding.
The credit that the member referenced is for the province of Saskatchewan. Are there other jurisdictions that are encountering the same situation, or is this truly unique to the province of Saskatchewan?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:59:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that individuals who might be following the debate here today or the debate that took place in Saskatchewan might be curious about what it really means in terms of the taxation.
Had the Province of Saskatchewan actually forgone any ability to tax CP Rail, or did CP Rail actually pay taxes? In listening to my colleague, one would be of the opinion that CP has been paying taxes. That is not 100% my understanding. If she could enlighten me on that point, I would really appreciate it.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:27:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member will recall that late last year when this suggestion first came up, shortly after the Saskatchewan legislature passed the motion, we looked at giving unanimous consent to pass a motion. At the time, I indicated that I did not think it would be appropriate, given the very nature that a constitutional change was being proposed.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts as to why he feels today it is important for us, at the very least, to have some debate before the motion's passage.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:40:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can reflect on the amendment we have before us today in the form of a motion. It deals with an agreement that was, in principle, agreed to back in the 1960s. It dates all the way back to 1880, as has been pointed out.
There is a general feeling on all sides and from all stakeholders, including CP Rail itself to a certain degree, although this might be somewhat dated, that there is a quite difference between a motion of this nature and some of the more complicated issues of constitutional ideas that surface from all sides of the House. Does the member recognize the difference?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:53:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is completely out of touch with what the people of Canada, including people in Quebec, actually feel is an obligation of the federal government.
The residents I represent, and that he is smearing, understand and appreciate that there is a need for the federal government in the area of health care. It is not good enough just to give cash. We can look at the pandemic, long-term care, mental health and other very important issues where my constituents, and I believe many of the constituents the member represents, want to see a national government presence in health care.
Could it be the member is using a brush to paint a picture that is unfair to the people of Canada?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:09:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, based on a number of today's comments, people listening to the debate might think CP has not been paying any taxes to the Province of Saskatchewan, and we know that to be not true. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on not only ensuring tax fairness but also being transparent that CP has actually been paying taxes. It has not been using that particular clause in order to avoid paying taxes.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:25:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments the member made, especially when asking if there was something we could learn from CP and the Constitutional change, and how the Constitution reflected an agreement that pre-existed Saskatchewan entering Confederation.
Are there things that we can learn from it? For example, we have a huge investment that came from the British Columbia NDP government toward LNG, which was supported by this national government and by huge contributions from the private sector. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that issue. Is that something he would support?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:37:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope to be able to expand upon this, but I appreciate the fact that CP did enter into an agreement back in the mid-sixties, in 1965 or 1966, as no doubt there would have been some discussions in the lead-up to it. I think it is important for us to recognize that CP as a corporation has been paying taxes. I do not know what triggered CP, whether it was a young intern or whomever, to ultimately decide this issue should be going to a court.
Is the member aware of the situation? Do we know why CP made the decision to move in the direction of going to court?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:51:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I had indicated previously, my understanding is that the motion will pass. I am anticipating that it will pass.
At the end of the day, I was taken by the member's comments. It was in November when the Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion unanimously, and then a couple of weeks later, on the floor of the House, a UC motion was used to try to actually change the Constitution. Does the member feel that the debate we are having today was necessarily warranted? Did we really need to have a debate on an amendment to the Constitution?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:56:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to first address the challenge put forward to me by the member for Yorkton—Melville. She wanted me to show how I can identify with the province of Saskatchewan.
I am a Prairie boy. I spent a number of years living in Saskatchewan, albeit I am a Bombers fan over a Roughriders fan. Unfortunately, I have family members who are Roughriders fans over the Bombers, which I suspect goes back to the time I spent growing up in Saskatchewan with my siblings and others.
Saskatchewan is a beautiful province. Much like with all regions of this country, I would say to my family and friends that Ottawa does care when things are happening in Saskatchewan. Whether they are constitutionally related, employment related, regarding the environment or even something such as charges on pollution, all of these things matter and they are issues we take very seriously.
The government has always been open not only to what people are saying but also to listening to what other parliamentarians have been saying. I thought that is where I would start today.
There has been reference made to this unanimous motion request put forward back in December, and I was one of the individuals who said, no, I did not think we should allow, through unanimous consent of the House of Commons, something to pass through related to a constitutional amendment.
I looked at what happened in the Saskatchewan legislature, where the issue was debated. There were comments put on the record with regard to it, and I want to share some of those comments with members today. I know some people were upset when I indicated that passing a constitutional amendment through unanimous consent without any debate whatsoever in the House of Commons was not an appropriate thing to do. That is the reason I said no back in December.
As I indicated in my remarks, I will be supporting the motion that was brought forward. Since the unanimous consent was requested back in December, I have had the opportunity to become better informed. I understand there has been outreach from MLAs in the Province of Saskatchewan to ensure and provide a sense of comfort to members on all sides of the House regarding why they put in the request.
I want to go right to the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature, where we saw a minister highlight why we are in this situation. Mr. Wyant said, “As members of this House [the Saskatchewan legislature] are likely aware, CPR is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for $341 million, claiming a broad tax exemption under section 24.” He went on to say, “As a matter of tax policy and business competitiveness, there must be a level playing field for all businesses.”
He goes on to highlight what I believe is a very important point, and this is one of the reasons I am very surprised a lawsuit would have even been launched. I do not want to get into the legal proceedings that much. The courts will do whatever the courts will ultimately do on the issue. However, Mr. Wyant continues to say:
...it’s our view that the Canadian Pacific Railway company agreed in 1966 that it would forgo the tax exemption in exchange for regulatory changes made by the federal government. The federal government upheld its end of the agreement by making those regulatory changes which provided significant benefits to the CPR. It’s now time to ensure that our Constitution reflects that reality.
He makes it very clear that during the mid-sixties there was a discussion that took place where CP, the province and the federal government, either directly or indirectly, engaged in a discussion about the constitution of Saskatchewan and the impact of the clause that we are debating today. The consensus and agreement going out of that meeting saw the residents of Saskatchewan and, in fact, all Canadians, ensure that CP would maintain payments or pay their fair share of taxes back then.
For those people who might be following the debate, I do believe it is important to recognize that, since that agreement between CP, Saskatchewan and the federal government, there has been a payment of taxes. That agreement was entered into in good faith. Earlier in the comments, I read that there is a lawsuit for $341 million, which is a significant amount of money coming from a corporation. That makes me question what caused the launch of the lawsuit.
Some may question why, in 2022, we are debating this today. Members will get a better sense of that if they look at the November 29 Hansard from the Saskatchewan legislature, where there was a resolution that was unanimously passed. I just want to pick out two things from it because it is a fairly lengthy resolution. The first of the two aspects of the resolution that I want to highlight for members is that it states:
Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established in 1905....
I do not know all the taxes that CP has been paying. Hopefully there will be a response from CP or someone else as to why it is that the court action has been taken, but it is important that we recognize, as this resolution states, that since 1905 the railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan.
The other thing I want to highlight is where it states:
Whereas on August 29th, 1966, the then president of the Canadian Pacific Railway company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the board of the Canadian Pacific Railway company had no objection to the constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption....
That is why I make reference to the fact of this agreement. CP was not looking to receive benefits from the tax exemption. In fact, it goes on:
The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29th, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.
That is, therefore, the resolution coming from the Saskatchewan legislature. Appreciating the fact that it passed unanimously, Mr. Wotherspoon from the New Democratic Party makes reference to the Saskatchewan Act and makes it very clear in his explanation stating:
This is why as the official opposition Saskatchewan New Democrats, we’ve called for the repeal of section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, 1905 and why we are proud to stand united as a legislature to send this motion for approval to Ottawa, the House of Commons, and the Senate.
If members are interested in the details and content of the resolution, it can be found in the Hansard of the Saskatchewan legislature of November 29. Suffice to say, it passed unanimously.
When I look at the Constitution of Canada and the constitutional debates, I do not believe we should, through unanimous consent motions, pass a constitutional amendment. I do not say that lightly because, while I like to think I am still relatively young, I have had some experience with constitutional amendments. First it was as someone sitting in front of the TV back in 1982 watching our then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau sign off, along with Her Majesty the Queen, on the Constitution of Canada and bring in the Charter of Rights, which was instilled in me as a very proud moment at that relatively young age but also did a lot to bring Canadians together and instill a sense of pride. Not much longer after I had witnessed that, I was inspired to get engaged in politics in a more tangible way and had the good fortune of getting elected in 1988.
Those who are familiar with constitutional change and amendments and attempts would know that in 1988 we had the Meech Lake accord. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature when it was the only province to not sign on to the accord. Back then, because of the holdup in the Manitoba legislature, I believe the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador withdrew its original support of the Constitution. I remember the significant protests that took place both inside and outside of the legislature, and why indigenous people in particular felt empowered to a certain degree through Elijah Harper to ensure that the national and provincial governments of all political stripes understood why there was an issue with the Meech Lake accord.
If we fast-forward from that experience to the 1990s and the Charlottetown accord, I had the good fortune, or bad fortune depending on how one wants to look at it, of being around for that debate. I remember having a debate in the north end of Winnipeg with a member of Parliament who was speaking against what I was proposing. It was Bill Blaikie, the former member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona and the father of the current member.
In that debate I said I disagreed with Mr. Blaikie and that, in fact, the national government had a role to play in housing in Canada, because the Charlottetown accord, among other things, tried to give the direction that housing was an entirely provincial responsibility. There were a number of us, including me, who felt the federal government had a role to play with respect to national housing. I find it ironic today to hear the comments from the members of the opposition saying that we need to do something on the housing file, when the Prime Minister has clearly demonstrated a strong cabinet commitment to national housing through the national housing strategy, with hundreds of millions of dollars coming from Ottawa to support housing.
For example, even Bill C-8, legislation that we were debating, has a direct impact on housing. This is why I say that constitutional issues are important to all of us.
However, sometimes constitutional changes can be all-encompassing. They can consume a great deal of time and effort and they are very difficult to achieve, which is why, when I look at governments from the past since the Charlottetown Accord, I do not believe that the mood of Canadians is to see constitutional change at this time. I do not believe that Canadians want us to be focusing on constitutional changes at this time.
That said, as has been pointed out, there are different ways in which a constitution can be changed, and the type of change we are talking about today is very different from what we have talked about in the past. Members of the Liberal caucus understand and appreciate that the Saskatchewan legislature has passed a unanimous resolution. We understand why the timing of it is so critically important today, even though it was enacted over 100 years ago in an agreement that I will provide some comment on shortly. However, the point is that as things take place in Saskatchewan, we understand the need for the federal government to respond, and today is a good example.
Someone mentioned earlier today that this is an opposition motion. Well, just because it is an opposition member's motion does not necessarily mean that it does not merit passage in the House of Commons or support from the government. That is why the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me indicated that the government would in fact be supporting the motion. We recognize that in the last election, as in the previous election, Canadians said they want Parliament and parliamentarians to work together, and where we can, we do. We do work together when there is that higher sense of co-operation, and we are seeing that with respect to this motion.
On other issues related to this motion, there is the issue of tax fairness. This issue was brought up consistently by my New Democratic friends in particular, to try to give the false impression that members of the Liberal government do not support tax fairness. That is so wrong. One of our very first actions in government was the Prime Minister's commitment to tax fairness. He brought in legislation to put a tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Ironically, my New Democratic friends voted against it. We have had not one but two budgets in which hundreds of millions of dollars were allocated to try to ensure that those who are avoiding paying taxes, including big business, are held to account. We are investing more in Revenue Canada. I do not need to be told that my constituents want and demand tax fairness. We as a government, through our cabinet and with the support of the Liberal members of caucus, and I suspect even at times the support of opposition members, have brought in initiatives to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness in Canada today.
2150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:17:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the question. I really can.
Often members will stand up after question period and say, “There have been discussions”, but to imply that there have been discussions does not necessarily mean that there was consent. When a member stands up after question period and says, “There have been discussions”, we should never make the assumption that it means there was consent to agree to the motion. I think we do need to take a look at that particular rule in general.
The very first time I heard about that particular motion to any real degree was at the time it was actually being moved, and I sit on the House leadership team. There might have been something taking place during question period, but during question period it is fairly hectic. I would have been more sympathetic, but I still would have suggested a day of debate, at least, on the issue.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:19:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I reflect back on 1982, I would have loved to have seen all provinces sign on to the Constitution. As much as I reflected on my personal history with the province of Saskatchewan, my heritage was actually rooted very strongly in the province of Quebec for many generations. In and around just south of Montreal is where my family originated. Many people living in Saskatchewan today all came from the province of Quebec. There are very passionate, strong feelings from many of my friends and families, who want to make sure that Quebec, like Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions, remains a part of the Canadian family. We have far more in common—
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:21:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me tell the member the truth. When I was an MLA in the Manitoba provincial legislature, the NDP continuously, on four, five, or maybe as many as seven occasions, reduced corporate taxes. At the same time, there was a need for health care funding and better management of services. As far as trying to portray the New Democrats as the only ones who fight for tax fairness is concerned, I would suggest that the member might want to do a Hansard search of the Manitoba legislature, where he will find that I was critical of the NDP for its taxation policy, which was not always advantageous to Canada's middle class.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:23:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in a very real sense, I believe that all provinces are equal here in Canada. I will stand up and debate that on any day of the week.
Having said that, I recognize that this is something that is important to the Province of Saskatchewan. It is more than just symbolic, and it is the right thing for us to be doing at this point in time.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:24:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would highlight that those who want to get a better understanding and see the actual resolution that passed in the Saskatchewan legislature can always go to the Saskatchewan legislature's website. If they look at the Saskatchewan Hansard for November 29, they will find the debate and the vote that took place, which clearly indicated that the motion was unanimously passed by that legislature. It was a somewhat shorter debate, but there was a debate and an explanation and so forth provided at the Saskatchewan legislature, and one would expect that, because it is a constitutional change.
I believe that we need to revisit the way we use unanimous consent motions. Without any hesitation at all, I think we should never pass a UC motion that deals with the Constitution, given the importance of our constitutional law.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:49:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand the speech that the member has just delivered. One would think he had given it on the assumption that the government was not supporting the motion. The government has been very supportive of all things within Saskatchewan. Here we have a motion that is rooted in an all-party, unanimously supported motion from the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature, which we have said that we are supporting. That means we are voting in favour of the motion.
I do not know why the member espouses hatred from this government toward the people of Saskatchewan or the west. I am from the west, and I think that things are looking better today than they were during the Stephen Harper era. Why will he not recognize a good thing and support the Liberals supporting—
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
