44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/8/22 11:22:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Senate. The Senate is independent of our government, but we certainly will be supporting members throughout the passage of the motion in the House of Commons today, as well as supporting it through the process in the Senate.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:22:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very technical. I will put it in terms that people can better understand. Basically, Canadian National, or CN, is asking for a reimbursement of taxes paid that is equivalent to 0.3% of its sales annually.
In 2021, that equalled $8 billion dollars, which is significant. The annual amount requested by CN represents approximately $290 for every Saskatchewan taxpayer, including children. How is it fair that a multi-billion company that was granted land for free and exemptions until 1966 is asking for more?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:23:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today's subject is a constitutional amendment that would essentially give Saskatchewan a right that it should have had to tax CPR. That is the fundamental issue. Previously, without this amendment, that would have been limited. I therefore submit that this is moving toward fairness, and it is up to the Government of Saskatchewan to impose a tax policy that is appropriate.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:24:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the most surprising thing I have heard this morning has come from the member for Regina—Lewvan, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and now the parliamentary secretary, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park. They have all said the same thing: They believe corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The New Democrats welcome all of them onto that political space because it has been a long time since we have heard that kind of unity here.
Does the member think we can use the consensus this morning on paying a fair share of taxes to move forward with some kind of supertax on those who have profited from the pandemic?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:25:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously, my friend has not known my politics long enough to understand that I have always said it is important to tax corporations. Of course, as a party we believe that and have acted on it consistently. We look forward to working with all parties on issues of importance, particularly in this case to ensure that Saskatchewan has all the tools available to it so we do not differentiate it from other provinces.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:25:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Regina—Lewvan on this motion, and I thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge Park for quite a lot of technical information that helped to guide me a bit. I love Saskatchewan very much. My father used to live in Saskatchewan, and I visited Regina many times to race on Wascana Lake.
I want to give a shout-out to Mark McMorris, who won his third bronze medal at the Olympics. He is the pride of Saskatchewan. I texted his dad Don and his mom Cindy yesterday to congratulate them.
As to my question for the member, have we looked at how this would enable Saskatchewan to raise revenues and potentially invest more in health care, education or other priority areas for the province?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:26:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Milton for his leadership and for ensuring that Canada's team does very well in Beijing. I really look forward to the medals they bring home.
To his point, this allows Saskatchewan a number of important things. First, it equalizes the tax playing field for all businesses so there is no unfair advantage and no unfair burden on other corporations that do not have this exemption. Second, it allows for corporations, such as CPR, to pay their share of taxes that are due to the people of Saskatchewan. It is really up to the people of Saskatchewan to decide how they spend their money, including on important issues such as health care.
119 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 11:28:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know our not supporting the ratification of this motion by way of unanimous consent was noted by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. As the member knows, we get a number of unanimous consent motions, and something of this nature, with the magnitude of amending the Constitution, requires debate, and it is the type of debate we are having today. It allowed the government a number of months. The Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion in November last year, so we are within a three-month timeline to support it.
We are very proud to support the motion today. We look forward to its passage both in the House and in the other place.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:29:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel, commonly known as the Jean-René Dufort of the Bloc Québécois.
I asked myself this morning how I would deal with this fascinating issue. Something struck me when reading the motion, specifically the following:
Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie....
As I am fascinated by this subject, I consulted the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the dean of our party, who was there, and he told me that the last spike was actually driven into the track on November 4.
All joking aside, it is a fascinating subject, but I will comment on two aspects. First, I asked myself why my Conservative colleagues decided to devote an opposition day to this issue. In my view, a political party generally uses an opposition day to poke at the government with actions that more or less reflect their own political orientation. Sometimes, the intent is to shed light on urgent issues or to put forward the party's policies or agenda, which are unique to each party.
Why would the Conservatives choose to use an opposition day to talk about the railway in Saskatchewan, especially in the middle of a pandemic? Numerous opposition days have been dedicated to this urgent situation, on such topics as vaccination and the “Justinflation” that my Conservative friends keep bringing up. The Conservatives are positively giddy about inflation.
I have to wonder why they did not devote an opposition day to inflation or health care funding. It seems as if power within the Conservative Party is shifting west. Who knows. I do not know. I would not want my Quebec colleagues to feel abandoned, but this is nevertheless rather interesting.
Earlier this morning I pointed out to a Conservative member that if we were to adopt this motion it would set a precedent for allowing an opposition member to move a motion to amend the Constitution. My colleague said that this had been done before, but by the government. This would therefore be the first time the Constitution would be amended through an opposition motion. I am not going to lie; this precedent is pretty appealing to a sovereignist.
We know that no one wants to debate the Canadian Constitution or hear about it. Let us remember that the rhetoric of the federalist governments in Quebec City was that the fruit was not ripe enough so we could not talk about the Constitution.
Need I remind members that in 1982, Quebec was the only province that did not sign the Constitution? We still have not signed it to this day. Perhaps we could resolve this issue through a motion.
Need I remind members of the two unsuccessful rounds of constitutional negotiations, Meech and Charlottetown? Quebec kept whittling its demands down further and further, but despite this reduction to Quebec's five traditional demands, there was no agreement from all the provinces to amend the Constitution and offer Quebec special status. My colleagues will therefore understand why this idea of being able to amend the Constitution based on an opposition motion would excite a typical sovereignist. I am highly intrigued by the idea.
The Constitution is our principle of political association; it is a fundamental principle. We are one of the only countries whose principle of political association was based on building a railway. That is true. If we look at the United States, their principle of political association was based on a quest for emancipation. It is ironic that we are talking about this issue today, given that the starting point for us was that a group of business people wanted to build a railway from one coast to the other, and in order to do that, there had to be a political form that emerged from the various colonies at the time. That is how the British North America Act came to be.
I find it kind of ironic that we are revisiting the subject in the present context. However, what most interests me is the possibility of amending the Constitution via an opposition party motion.
Many political thinkers have already pondered this question, including James Tully, who has written about diversity. In his book, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity, James Tully tells us that one of Canada's biggest problems is our restrictive constitutional framework. He says it is virtually impossible to amend the Constitution, which makes it that much more difficult to recognize ethnic minorities. James Tully talks about that in this wonderful book, and his conclusion is that our constitutional rules should be more flexible. In other words, we should have the means to easily amend our Constitution.
That is very interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but why have we not done it? Why has there never been much appetite in Canada for the kind of flexible framework that would enable us to amend the Constitution?
I will say it. It is quite simple. The reason is, if we open this Pandora's box, it will be easier for indigenous groups to get what they have long been asking for, namely greater political autonomy.
It is important to make a distinction. When James Tully says that minorities must be constitutionally recognized, he is referring to ethnocultural minorities. However, there are also national minorities, and in the Canadian context, we have two main groups: the minorities of the indigenous nations, which are too numerous to name, and the Quebec national minority.
What are these national minorities asking for? They want political autonomy.
As my father used to say, opportunity makes the thief. If we had a system that facilitated more flexible constitutional amendments, we would definitely be the first in line to try to use such measures, perhaps to assert Quebec's traditional demands, specifically, veto power and recognition of distinct status. I am sure that indigenous nations could do the same.
Unfortunately, the federal government and the federalist parties will never allow the flexibility needed for constitutional changes to be made. If a precedent is being set today, I am curious to see how this will develop in the future.
A constitutional amendment was made in the past, without any fuss or fanfare. In Quebec, Pauline Marois wanted to change the school boards from being divided along religious lines to linguistic ones. A constitutional amendment was needed for that to happen. It was done without too much fuss or too many political problems.
However, we do not have a tool that would allow us, as legislators, to potentially enter into dialogue with our colleagues on the Constitution. I welcome the Conservative Party motion today, because it might be just what we need to be able to open this Pandora's box and actually have a conversation about the Constitution.
If we do go down that road, perhaps the Quebec nation and indigenous nations could be recognized in some way. That is why I am confident that my party will enthusiastically support my colleague's motion.
1190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:39:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for supporting this motion. It is a matter of fairness and justice. It is a matter of fairness to the provinces, especially to Saskatchewan. That is what the motion is asking for.
Does the member agree with that?
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:39:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
I may not have focused on that aspect in my speech, but it is unacceptable to allow a company like Canadian Pacific, which according to my research makes $2.8 billion in profit a year, to not pay taxes. That is unacceptable.
That is something that I think can be fixed quickly. With the goodwill of the Liberal Party, I am sure that we can quickly resolve that issue.
78 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 11:41:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be honest, I have to tell my colleague from Winnipeg North that I am not a constitutional expert. However, I very much appreciate the idea that an opposition member can propose amendments to the Constitution by means of a motion.
As I said earlier, when I was a bit younger, I was interested in what James Tully had to say about flexible constitutions. Personally, I tend to think that is a good idea. If we set a precedent, it could be good for those who are trying to advance the idea that the Quebec nation could have more political autonomy. From that perspective, I find that my Conservative colleagues' motion is worthwhile.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:42:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Jonquière. I lived in Saguenay for several years.
The big issue before the House of Commons today is the fact that a tax loophole has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. As we all know, we lose $25 billion a year to tax havens. There are tax loopholes everywhere. In Canada, the ultrarich avoid paying their fair share of the money that should be invested to combat the housing shortage, to reinforce our health care system and so forth.
My question for the member for Jonquière is simple. Is it not important to eliminate all these tax loopholes?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:43:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from the NDP.
The government is plainly complacent about tax havens and tax loopholes. There is talk of the need for major initiatives once we are out of this crisis, including with regard to health care funding. That money will have to come from somewhere.
There needs to be major tax reform. We also need to put an end to tax havens and all the tax loopholes that are poisoning our society. I completely agree with him.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:43:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I feel like I am dealing in antiques today. The motion we are debating would amend a Constitution that was ill-conceived and that has aged poorly. The Constitution has so many holes, it looks like moths got at it. The holes in this Constitution are costing the provinces, Quebec and taxpayers a lot of money and preventing the provinces from properly and independently funding their public services.
What we are talking about today is a 136-year-old, billion-dollar company that cleared $2.8 billion in net profit last year and is exempt from paying taxes. As an economist specializing in taxation, my first instinct is to say this is an injustice and a relic of post-colonial cronyism.
This tax revenue is owed to Saskatchewan, and we think that the provincial government should get this money back. I want to inform my colleagues straightaway that I will be pleased to support this motion.
However, since we are speaking of holes in the Constitution that are costly for the provinces, I think it is difficult to ask the opposition, and especially members of the Bloc Québécois, to disregard other fundamental problems that this Constitution has created.
As I said, the Constitution has not aged well. The Constitution was drafted in 1867, and the majority of its provisions are still in force today, but the country that drafted this Constitution was not a modern country. Health care essentially referred to field hospitals run by religious communities. Assistance for the poor was essentially charity, again run by religious communities. Education consisted of a few one-room schoolhouses and some private schools supported by charity. These responsibilities were assigned to the provinces. The Catholics were in Quebec, and they were essentially given peanuts. The Constitution was obviously drafted to ensure that Ottawa would get more and more revenue over time.
When Canada was founded, there was no personal income tax, no corporate tax, and no sales tax. I just listed basically all of the federal government's revenue sources. Since then, all the responsibilities have remained with Quebec and the provinces, but half of the revenue has gone to Ottawa.
That is the problem, because we have a dusty old Constitution, the spirit of which the party in power deigns to respect. The provinces have responsibilities, and they must have management autonomy and must be able to legislate in their areas of jurisdiction. What remains is the power to spend. The problem is simple, and I have explained it many times to students: Ottawa has too much cash. That would make a great headline.
Ottawa loves to meddle in provincial affairs, loves to spend money and make legislation in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but the Constitution does not allow this. However, there is a loophole: the federal government can tell the provinces that if they do not do what it wants, it will withhold the promised money instead of giving it to them. Unfortunately, the Constitution has evolved, but not for the better. That is the problem.
Today, we have a government that provides Canada health transfers that cover only 22% of the system's costs. When this government is asked to respect the Constitution, it spits in Quebec's face. The line that all the Liberals across the way keep repeating like trained parrots is that Quebec will not be given a blank cheque, that money is not given out without accountability.
We tell them that it is none of their business and that health is not a federal jurisdiction. Their response, which I have been given here in the House, is that this is false and that it is a shared jurisdiction. They say that we have only to look at the Canada Health Act to see the way it is institutionalized. This act is the embodiment of the federal spending power. It is an almost unethical way of confirming that Ottawa has too much cash.
The blank cheque is Canada's Constitution, and that is not what Quebec is asking for. The Liberals have slashed funding for health care. People need to understand that. The Constitution is full of holes. It has evolved, but not for the better. That is also true for other sectors.
Mental health is an important matter. The pandemic has shown how difficult things can be and how great the provinces' needs are in terms of mental health. That is also the case for health care and hospital capacity.
What was the government's response? It decided to appoint a minister. Instead of appointing a minister of mental health, it should have sent money to Quebec. The issue is not that we are begging for money, but that the Constitution is full of holes as though eaten by moths. It should have been printed on cedar.
The same goes for housing. There is currently a housing crisis. We know the Liberals well. They talk a lot and think that the problems will solve themselves. Quebec wants respect. Negotiations on housing have been been ongoing for two and a half years. We are at that point because Quebec ensures that its jurisdictions are respected and stands up for itself. That is nothing new.
In 1951, the then premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, was already turning down federal subsidies for universities, because Ottawa had already started acting predatory by then. What did Quebeckers do when Ottawa refused to give in? They forfeited their own money, just as they are doing now, just as they have done for housing, health and mental health. Ottawa wants us to give in to its conditions because it has too much cash. That is the case for social policy, for the Canada health transfer and for the Canada social transfer. Ottawa says that if we do not accept its conditions, it will not give us the money.
I did not say I was against a universal public health care system and so on. What I said was that it is none of their business. The reason they are not minding their own business is that the Constitution has aged poorly. None of it has aged any better than the section that applies to the CPR. It is important to understand that this is not an exception. It is a major problem.
Now I would like to share a bit about myself.
I remember the moment when something just clicked and I decided to become an economist. I believe it was in 2001. I had read the Conference Board of Canada's report on the fiscal prospects for Quebec and the provinces. In early 2000, I was attending CEGEP. I still have the document, which has a blue binding. It showed the changing demographics and the provinces' responsibilities and how everything was going to fall apart. I should note the Conference Board is not a group of sovereignists.
People have been saying this for a long time. The Tremblay commission in Quebec said it, and so did the Séguin commission. This was based on forecasts that proved to be accurate. What happened on the other side? Nothing.
Former Quebec premier Bernard Landry, who was negotiating with former prime minister Jean Chrétien, had no choice but to call him a predator because of his behaviour. The Constitution has not aged well and was not well written.
I sympathize with our friends in Saskatchewan. A mistake can be corrected. In fact, correcting one's mistakes is a sign of intelligence. I think that we will show some intelligence today on this file.
Following this debate and after all is said and done, I sincerely hope that the CPR will be able to sing “Saskatchewan, you took my tax”.
1299 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 11:54:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is so disconnected that I think I will ask a page to take him an adapter.
There are 10 provincial premiers, all of whom are asking for an unconditional increase in health transfers and for Ottawa to mind its own business. Would my colleague say they do not represent anyone? Do those people not matter?
This is the attitude I am talking about, the Liberals' attitude towards Quebec and the provinces. They would have us believe that mutual respect is tantamount to giving a blank cheque. Meanwhile, they are slashing funding. Our constituents, like those in my riding, Mirabel, need more funding for improved services and want the system to be managed by the people on the ground, not you.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:54:59 a.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the hon. member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
