Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Amendment to the Constitution of Canada (The Saskatchewan Act)

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill would do and why members of Parliament from all parties in the House today give their support to having those discussions and improving the taxation and revenues for all Canadians, including of course for Saskatchewan.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about the rail lines, I thought maybe it would be a good time to ask the member a question about opening up more access for our farmers to ship more of their grain and if they would consider building more pipelines in order to get more access to farmers on the rail lines.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the good thing about federation is that we work closely with all provinces and territories to find ways of moving our products. There are various ways of doing that and lots of efficient ways to do it. There are a lot of ways to do that while respecting climate change, so the answer to the member's question is yes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the amendment to the Saskatchewan Act put forward by the Government of Saskatchewan.

The relationship between federal and provincial partners has perhaps never been more important. As we continue to fight against the end of COVID-19, we are dedicated to a team Canada approach. The Government of Canada is committed to further building on this open and collaborative relationship with provinces and territories.

COVID-19 has profoundly affected the physical and mental health, as well as the social and economic lives, of Canadians. Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been collaborating in these unprecedented times to support Canada's pandemic response. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, close co-operation between all governments has been integral to keeping Canadians safe.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has held 36 first ministers calls to coordinate the governments' response to COVID-19 at the most senior level. Discussion topics have included border measures, vaccine rollouts, testing and personal protective equipment. Importantly, these meetings led to the FPT Safe Restart Agreement, which was announced on July 16, 2020, and is an investment of more than $19 billion to help provinces and territories address key priorities, including testing, health care system capacity, vulnerable populations, procurement of PPE, child care and sick leave.

The safe return to class fund announced on August 26, 2020, is an investment of up to $2 billion for provinces and territories to adapt learning spaces, improve air ventilation, increase hand sanitization and hygiene, and purchase PPE and cleaning supplies. The government also invested $2.2 billion to top up the Canada community building fund in 2020-21, along with other direct transfers to the provinces and territories.

From day one of the pandemic, our government has provided eight out of every 10 dollars spent to fight COVID-19 and support Canadians. As the economy continues to recover from the pandemic, we remain committed to working with provinces and territories to build a more resilient economy. Our economic response plan has helped people and businesses weather the storm, including the people of Saskatchewan.

In the Speech from the Throne, our government put forward new commitments to finish the fight against COVID-19, expedite the economic recovery, improve health care, advance indigenous reconciliation, make housing more affordable and accelerate the transition to net zero.

The recent surge of COVID-19 cases in regions throughout Canada underscores the need for ongoing co-operation, vigilance in pandemic monitoring, preparedness and response. Thus far, the federal government has allocated more than three million doses of COVID vaccines to Saskatchewan. Several million rapid tests have also been shipped to the province. All of that was free of charge.

In addition to this, in 2021-22, Saskatchewan will be receiving $1.3 billion through the Canada health transfers and $478 million through the Canada social transfer.

The Government of Canada is committed to having positive bilateral relations with all provinces and territories. One I would like to touch on is our ongoing relationship and work with the Government of Saskatchewan. The truth is that governments will not always agree on every issue. However, there are a number of recent examples of agreements that truly benefit the people of Saskatchewan.

In April 2020, our government announced a historic investment of $1.7 billion to clean up orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells, $400 million of which has been provided to Saskatchewan. This investment will create up to 5,200 jobs while reducing environmental and safety risks in western communities.

During the pandemic, and in response to a request for assistance from the Government of Saskatchewan in the fall of 2021, Canadian Red Cross and Canadian Armed Forces personnel were provided on the ground to support hospitals in Saskatchewan. The Canada-Saskatchewan Integrated Bilateral Agreement was signed in 2018 and resulted in the allocation of $896.3 million for Saskatchewan.

Budget 2021 included a $1.5-billion investment to establish a clean fuels fund that will support private sector investments in the production and distribution of low-carbon and zero-emission fuels. In August 2021, the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan announced an agreement that will support an average of $10-a-day early learning and child care for Saskatchewan families by the end of 2025-26. In addition to significantly reducing the cost of child care, federal funding of close to $1.1 billion over the next five years will lead to the creation of 28,000 new regulated early learning and child care spaces.

Our respective governments have also reached an agreement to extend the Canada-Saskatchewan Early Learning and Child Care Agreement. The Government of Canada will provide over $68.5 million over the next four years to increase access to affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care spaces. In 2022-23, the Government of Saskatchewan will receive $1.9 billion through major transfers in the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer. The Government of Canada is committed to continuing to work with Saskatchewan to build on this momentum and tackle other important issues, fostering greater innovation, improving supply chains and internal trade, and addressing housing challenges, among other things.

As it pertains to the amendment to the Saskatchewan Act in question, I want to be clear on where we stand and the importance of such an amendment to our relationship with the province. At the end of the day, this issue is about fairness for the people and businesses of Saskatchewan. As many members will know, on November 29, 2021, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously adopted a resolution requesting an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act retroactive to 1966. Section 24 provides an exemption on certain taxes for the Canadian Pacific Railway. This exemption was provided to recognize investments in building the railroad, a railroad that to this day we depend on, but we need to take into account when that initial agreement was made and how it has aged over time.

In accordance with the section 43 amendment procedure in the Constitution Act, 1982, the Government of Canada will support Saskatchewan's amendment request when the parallel resolution is moved in Parliament. Under the Constitution, following resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assembly considered, the amendment is made by proclamation of the Governor General. This is an important pillar and process of our democracy as our nation evolves. It is something that calls on all of us to work together in order to review requests specific to the unique circumstances of each province with the attention and care that they deserve. These are important decisions that we cannot take lightly, but ultimately we must do what is best for Canadians and what makes the most sense for the times we live in.

Our government recognizes the importance of working closely with our provincial and territorial partners and respecting the unique perspectives we all bring to the table so we can make life better for everyone. Building on our common priorities and finding ways to collaborate, even when we have diverse opinions, is a critical part of making sure we move forward on the issues that matter most to Canadians.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member opposite talk about how important federal-provincial intergovernmental co-operation is and seem to tout the government's record on that front. The facts and the reality on the ground in western Canada could not be further from the truth.

I am glad that on this issue we can count on the Liberals' support on an initiative that has practical effects in western Canada, but when it comes to the environmental plan that the Saskatchewan government put forward, it met and in fact exceeded the targets that the Liberals put out. However, that was not good enough, because it did not follow their tax-on-everything mentality. Instead of even just having a conversation, they rejected it out of hand.

In this new spirit of collaboration that we seem to have in the House today, which I am thankful for, will the Liberal member commit to a renewed conversation about how we can find other ways to work together for the good of the Canadian federation?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I went over all of the ways we have been there as a government to support Saskatchewan throughout this pandemic.

Also in my speech I talked about how, just in the last two years since the beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs met with provinces and premiers over 36 times. I ask the Conservatives, and let me just double-check, how many times the previous Conservative prime minister met with provinces and territories—oh yes, he decided he did not want to meet with premiers anymore.

Forgive me if we take no lessons on intergovernmental relationships from a party that refused to meet with premiers.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot discuss the Constitution without addressing the elephant in the room. Quebec did not sign the Constitution of 1982, which was imposed on it by the English Canadian majority. This considerably reduces the autonomy of Quebec’s National Assembly, for example on language policy. French is in decline across Canada, but also in Quebec.

As the Bélanger-Campeau Commission found 30 years ago, there are only two acceptable solutions for Quebec: independence, or major changes to the Constitution that would create a confederation of independent states.

I just want English Canadians to realize that we will be revisiting this issue, because Quebec and Quebeckers cannot survive as a people without full control of their social, economic and cultural development. That is what is called the right to self-determination.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we certainly know that the importance of the French language in Quebec and around Canada is paramount. This is why we support the government's initiatives to work with all provinces and territories, but in particular with Quebec, to promote language and to help reverse the decline of the French language in Quebec.

However, this particular amendment is in regard to tax fairness, and we support that for Saskatchewan in this House today. I look forward to future debates with the member opposite about what more we could do to promote the French language.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the entire discussion today is a reminder of how Canada's major railways have enjoyed immense power and totally unacceptable benefits and privileges for decades. This is still true, because they have often become corporate citizens that are not very good for their communities.

Recently, a 31-year-old woman died on the outskirts of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Mile End because there was no level crossing where there should have been one.

Are the Liberals prepared to work with the NDP and the City of Montreal to ensure the safety of Montrealers and make CP put in the level crossings we need?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I send my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the young woman that the member opposite spoke about.

Rail safety is of key importance to our government. We will absolutely continue to work with all members in this House and with all communities to ensure that the safety of citizens is paramount. I look forward to the continuing conversation.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, which is right beside the riding I represent and home to Canada's most notorious member.

I am very happy to see our first Conservative motion in 2022 dedicated to my home province of Saskatchewan, the land of living skies. It is an even greater honour for me to speak on its behalf today. It is another reminder of where I come from and who sent me to Ottawa in the first place, so in my first speech since the last election, I will first take a moment to thank the constituents of Cypress Hills—Grasslands for their support. It is always humbling to receive their trust and to serve as their representative in this place. I also have to say I would not be here without my family's love and the support they have shown me throughout my time in office, and of course I could not go without mentioning the many volunteers who have also helped to get me here as well, and board members who have also worked very hard on our local EDA.

Today, the official opposition is calling for the federal government to finalize a process already started by Saskatchewan in managing its own affairs. Back in November, the provincial legislature voted unanimously to amend the Saskatchewan Act under the Constitution. Since then, what remains is for a constitutional amendment to be authorized by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. In other words, the House and the other place will need to pass it. It might seem like a simple housekeeping item, and it could be handled as that, if the government so chooses, but that does not mean this is not a priority. It can be resolved easily and quickly, but only if the Liberals are willing to do it.

Instead, the government House leader waited for the last sitting day in December to say there would have to be a take-note debate in February. I hope all my colleagues here can see and appreciate how much time has already passed by and added up with this task we have taken on. We have not even started talking yet about passing anything through the actual parliamentary process. Of course, I can only hope the legislative agenda and procedure will run smoothly whenever that time comes. If not, how long is it going to take after it finally gets started?

In a minority Parliament we have done some good work through collaboration among all parties, and there is no reason for it not to happen here again as well. If the House leader's plan is to have a take-note debate, which still sounds good enough to some people, I will draw their attention to what the guide on parliamentary procedure has to say about it. Take-note debates “solicit the views of Members on some aspect of government policy and allow Members to participate in policy development, making their views known before the government makes a decision.”

Of course, the government can and should ask for input from different parties in Parliament. To be frank, I wish the Liberals did it a lot more often for developing policy and making decisions. This country would be much better for it. Hopefully this will become a new habit for them, but it is a bit confusing to see it happening on this file, if we should even really call it that.

What policy are we developing, exactly? Are the government members signalling that they have not yet even made a decision on what they are going to do about it? Are they going to oppose the amendment from Saskatchewan? If they are going to decide to authorize this change, why bother with a process that is supposed to be open to different options? If they somehow are trying to drag this out for some reason, it certainly seems like they are, but why? Would they take the same approach if the former member for Regina—Wascana was still in cabinet? I could say more about that later.

First, I want to focus on what is happening in Saskatchewan and in my riding. Apart from historical arguments, we can plainly see a situation in which a large railway company has not only tried to get out of paying taxes, but has tried to get taxpayers' money back after paying tax for decades. If this happened, there would of course be a huge business advantage over smaller competitors, but what is good for one company is not necessarily good for the market as a whole. When we consider everything together, it is not as surprising as it might sound that the Saskatchewan Party and the provincial NDP voted for the same motion. They have significant differences, but they share consensus here, because the case is closed.

As with so many other things, there are real benefits if we promote competition and smaller local businesses. In this case we are dealing with short-line operators. They highly deserve a shout-out in this discussion, as well as our thanks and substantial support. My riding is home to two of them: the Great Sandhills Railway and the Great Western Railway. They have strengthened and served their rural communities very well. I have heard that 90% of a particular company's operating budget goes back into the rural communities where they are stationed. As one example, when Great Sand Hills bought its line in 2009, there were only seven employees there. Deciding to start with nine employees, they have since increased to 60 people.

The positive effects of their investment and success on the many communities along the line they operate are undeniable. Business is growing, where larger operations without having a special connection to a place are more likely to let certain locations simply fade away, as is tragically the case with many small-town communities across this country.

As a result, people can find more jobs now. They can buy homes and they can support local charities and initiatives. They can create or maintain their way of life in rural Canada. Short-line railways are proving to be efficient, environmentally responsible and safe, while at the same time reducing burdens on publicly funded transportation. What is not to like? These railways need all the help they can get to continue on with their important work.

Knowing the current Liberal government, the answer might turn out to be that this all has to do with just Saskatchewan. For two elections in a row, the Liberals have failed to win a single seat in our province. The message from voters has been absolutely clear. Something is probably wrong with a national government that fails to connect to and win support from an entire region within our great country. It is nothing for the Liberals to be proud of, and it never should be ignored.

However, in so many obvious ways over the years, the Prime Minister's team has shown that it will prioritize petty politics over what is best for Canadians. It is definitely not a way to gain anybody's support, if the Liberals will keep treating our province disrespectfully. The Liberals will often interfere with our provincial government's attempts to improve the lives of our citizens, whether it is declining a better rebate for the carbon tax or unfairly attacking the delivery of health care services during the federal election.

Even though this might seem like a minor issue compared with other ones, it is a good opportunity for the Liberals to start treating Saskatchewan with respect. They should show us some goodwill and courtesy by delivering something for the betterment of our province. We really have to wonder if the Liberals would be handling this issue in the same way if it were another province trying to make a constitutional amendment.

There is no limit to the favours the Liberals will give out to their supporters. That is precisely the opposite of responsible leadership. That is why, as a Saskatchewan caucus representing every part of our province within the official opposition, we are leading the charge here in Ottawa. We are calling for the government to resolve this issue sooner rather than later. It really does not have to be so complicated. It does not have to be very difficult. Let us get it all done. We have a good spirit of collaboration happening here today. My message to all the members across the aisle, and to the other opposition parties, is let us get this done. Let us do what is right for Saskatchewan, and let us show that we are willing to work in the best interests of the provinces here in Ottawa.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been focusing on Saskatchewan, and the member has been mentioning that he wants Ottawa to be more involved and more supportive. I wonder if the member could comment on the success of the supercluster in Saskatchewan, the plant protein-based supercluster. I have a personal interest because I am a vegetarian, and one of my favourite snacks, chickpeas from Saskatchewan, comes from Three Farmers.

Can the member comment on how that has gone? That was a great joint collaboration between the federal government and the provincial government.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great that every now and then we see some successes from some government programs, and we can clearly say that is one really good example of success.

There have been some other issues. We saw the government hand out lots of money to a multi-billionaire from the U.S. to create a pulse-processing plant in Saskatchewan. I do not think he necessarily needed taxpayer money for that.

Generally speaking, though, what the member has referenced here is a good thing, and if we are spending taxpayer money, I would like to see more targeted investment to make sure we get the best possible result for Canadians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask was raised briefly by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert a little earlier.

Members are unanimous on Saskatchewan’s request, which seems very reasonable to us all. However, how is it that no one seems to realize that one of the country’s provinces has not signed the Constitution we are talking about? This is not news, it dates back to 1982. I find it odd that that does not bother anyone but us, and I would like to understand why.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

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.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

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.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

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?