Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague that I know his doppelgänger. He lives in Moose Jaw. I know his identical twin. He is on my EDA board. Every time the member stands, it freaks me out a bit. I would like to get a selfie with the member, if he does not mind.

This is important to Saskatchewan. We believe in a strong Confederation and in a strong nation of Canada. Making a stronger Saskatchewan makes a stronger Canada. That is what I am speaking about today. That is what we are discussing and that is the opportunity before the House.

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

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments from my friend. One thing Quebec and Manitoba share in common is a passion for Louis Riel. For many years I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, and when I would look in the backyard of the Manitoba legislature building, I would see the Louis Riel monument. There is also his gravesite in Saint Boniface, which is a wonderful, flourishing francophone community. We owe a great deal of who we are today as a nation to the Métis nation and President David Chartrand.

My question takes a look at CP. It played a positive role to the extent that it connected Canada. It is important for us to recognize that it has been paying taxes. Ultimately, this amendment will remove an aspect of the Saskatchewan Act that needs to be dealt with, which was amply explained during the debate in the Saskatchewan legislature.

I would like to get clarification on the Bloc's perspective. I understand its members support the motion, as we do.

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

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his historical reminders complete with quotes that are indeed shameful in this day and age now that we have zero tolerance for racism.

I would like to ask him a question. Today's debate takes us back to a time when the federal government was the board of directors for the Canadian bourgeoisie. Are things fundamentally any different now?

Consider the fact that the government did not dare confront web giants that were not paying taxes here or force them to support our local journalists and media. Consider the fact that the Liberal government has been dragging its feet for years and is doing nothing to crack down on tax evasion and the use of tax havens. Given all that, can we really say that things are fundamentally any different now than they were then?

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

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.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

What a pleasure to see you again, Madam Speaker. I think this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address you in the chair, and it is a great privilege. Once again, congratulations on your appointment.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the hundreds of people in Quebec and the rest of Canada who have expressed concern via Facebook, email or phone about a member of my family in Lac-Saint-Jean who got COVID‑19 last week. I want everyone to know that my daughter, Jeanne, is doing well, and that is because she is vaccinated, as many others have pointed out. I wanted to share that with you because I know you were worried, Madam Speaker.

Never in a million years would I have missed an opportunity to talk about the Constitution and the taxation of a billion-dollar corporation.

As a separatist, I think this offers another wonderful perspective on what Canada is, namely, a state built on railways and run by the wealthy, a state lacking in long-term vision. It is a boring version of Ticket to Ride, a board game that my family and I play. Any mothers and fathers here must be familiar with this game. I see that some of my Conservative colleagues are nodding.

Canadian Pacific is claiming that it is entitled to a tax exemption under section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. Canadian Pacific has been paying taxes for some time. However, now it is saying that it never gave up its right to the exemption and it is asking for a refund of $341 million in taxes. The tax exemption for Canadian Pacific would not be so ridiculous if it had not taken Parliament 142 years to consider doing away with it.

In 1880, the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway required significant investment and generated little revenue. It is true. I am not saying differently.

However, Canadian Pacific has been a profitable company for far too long. As my colleague said a few minutes ago, CP made a $2.85-billion profit in 2021. There is no reason why it should be exempt from paying taxes. It goes without saying that it should pay taxes, just like any other company.

Throughout Quebec and Canada, SMEs are either struggling to make ends meet or falling short, especially in these difficult times. It is almost indecent to see what is happening. We can no longer let this happen without doing anything.

That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois supports the Conservative Party motion. In fact, we are especially pleased that this will shed light on what the sovereignist movement has been trying to make Canadians understand for decades: the Canadian Constitution is outdated. We have also been trying to tell Canadians for a long time that the Constitution Act of 1982 is inconsistent with the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. It makes no sense for Saskatchewan to have to go through Parliament to tax a railway company.

Constitutional amendment via opposition motion is definitely not the norm, but it would set a great precedent. It would prove that Quebeckers are not the only ones who can see that it is not working and it is all out of whack.

No conversation about Canada's Constitution would be complete without a mention of the elephant in the room: Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution.

Thirty years ago this year, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission found that the constitutional status quo was unacceptable for Quebec. We had two choices: a complete overhaul of federalism that would give Quebec the legislative and fiscal autonomy crucial to its development as a nation, or independence. Thirty years later, none of the issues have been resolved. The second option, independence, would be the most beneficial to Quebeckers. The federal government is constantly sweeping the dust under the rug with its empty rhetoric, so much so that talking about the Constitution has become taboo. The status quo, meanwhile, has become a reflex.

Back to the subject of trains. Although not up there with the fate of a people, this is nonetheless the second time in a year that a western province has demanded changes to the Constitution.

Just before Saskatchewan, Alberta held a referendum about requesting constitutional talks on equalization. The Bloc Québécois noted the result of Alberta's referendum and was open to having discussions. That is still the case today.

The Canadian Constitution is anachronistic, outdated and obsolete. The distribution of powers and resources is completely dysfunctional and incompatible with Quebec's status as a nation, which the House has recognized several times. That is also the very essence of a confederation. If today's motion eliminates the taboo about it, all the better. Civilized people can have a conversation, as we are seeing today.

Better late than never, and I hope that Quebec will come into its own and that the House will be invited to become a preferred partner of Quebec. In any event, I am going to keep a close eye on what my NDP and Liberal colleagues are going to do. If the motion were to be adopted, it would be the first time that the Constitution is amended as a result of an opposition motion. Think about it. My father was an opposition leader during a period like the one we find ourselves in, but he never even dreamed that this could happen. All joking aside, the adoption of today's motion would be a first and would afford Quebec some exciting opportunities.

Since 1982, Quebec’s powers have been limited by the Canadian Constitution against its wishes. Quebec never signed it. All attempts at constitutional reform to allow Quebec to sign have failed. Quebec rejected the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 because it was not enough, and the rest of Canada rejected it because it was too much. All this to say that a matter of trains or a national issue in Canada is a constitutional matter. If we are talking about trains today, we could be talking about Quebec soon, I hope.

Today, the House of Commons is discussing Saskatchewan’s constitutional status. It cannot keep pretending that the Quebec nation issue does not exist. We can all see that, by putting an end to the constitutional taboo, the Conservative motion is a potential step forward for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports it. Saskatchewan has the right to tax CP as it sees fit because the train passes through its territory, just as Quebec has the right to have the autonomy it needs to control its own social, economic and cultural development and what passes through its territory.

However, I would like to point out that it would have been legitimate for Saskatchewan to amend its constitution itself without going through Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois would have recognized that right without hesitation. Provincial governments have every right to make decisions about their future, in particular the Government of Quebec, which did not sign the 1982 amendment; only English Canada did. I will say it again. Saskatchewan’s legislature adopted a constitutional amendment motion on November 29 to revoke section 24 of its constitution. I am very open-minded, and I defer to the legislators in that province, who surely know what is best for them. Let us make it easier for them.

Lastly, I hope that my Conservative friends will have the same open mind when, one day, Quebec drafts a motion on its constitutional future and the Bloc Québécois, perhaps, tables it in the House.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments my colleague put on the record, and I thank him for his support of the motion going forward. I do have kids and I have played many games of Ticket to Ride. We have more in common, my Quebec colleagues and I, than we think.

Another thing we have in common is a respect for provincial jurisdiction. I thank the member for the support. Premier Moe called for an increase in health funding, so that is another thing Quebec and Saskatchewan have in common.

Given the constitutional amendment, are there other areas where the current Liberal government has let Quebec down? We probably have more things in common than we expect. Could he put some of those on the table so we can learn more about each other?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his extraordinary question, but I do not have enough time to answer, because it would take me at least half an hour.

I will name one that is obvious these days, namely health transfers. That is something concrete. The federal government’s job right now is simply to transfer health payments to Quebec and the provinces. That is all we are asking. We are not asking it to set conditions. We are asking it to do its job. According to the health act of 1962, the federal government was to pay 50% of healthcare costs. We are asking only for 35%.

That is a concrete example that anyone can understand. The premiers of the territories, the provinces and Quebec are unanimously calling for this, as are more then 90% of the people of Canada and Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about is a constitutional amendment to the Saskatchewan Act, and we need to recognize what precipitated it. Before Saskatchewan was a part of the federation, there was an agreement with CP Rail, a contract, that ultimately gave it exemptions from paying taxes. On the floor of the legislature in Saskatchewan, it was made very clear that this is about section 24 within the Saskatchewan Act, and there is a process that is, in fact, being followed, both by the Saskatchewan legislature and here in Ottawa.

I am wondering if the member could reflect on what we are doing with respect to the Saskatchewan Act. It is truly unique compared with, let us say, the changes to the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord that were proposed at one point.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is amazing to hear one of my Liberal Party colleagues say that we must absolutely respect an agreement from 1880 and possibly amend it, while also asking us to respect the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec has never signed. The Liberals have never openly admitted that Quebec was betrayed on the night of the long knives.

Today we are being asked to talk about an agreement that was made in 1880. We are being told that it would not be a big deal to amend the agreement, when in actual fact it would require a constitutional change.

When Quebec wants to talk about its independence and the Constitution, the Liberals are the first to stab it in the back, like they did in 1982 when 74 members from Quebec, who were present, voted in favour of patriating the Constitution.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say how much I really appreciate this debate in the House tonight. We are entering into a new era of awareness with regard to equity and history in Canada. I am seeing genocide, elitism and cronyism, and we have the opportunity to speak about that.

I want to ask the member from the Bloc, in this spirit, about finances, because unfortunately the Liberal members want to speak specifically about finances when there are so many greater things to talk about. I want to get back to the financial piece and ask if the member believes that large corporations must assume their fiscal obligations and should pay their fair share of taxes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is what we call teamwork. I thank my colleague from the NDP for that very important question.

Let us not forget that in the last budget the government said it would address tax evasion. It seems like the Liberals have been talking about that for decades. They say they will address tax evasion because they are good Liberals.

In the meantime, there was the sponsorship scandal, the lack of compliance with the Canada Elections Act during the referendum, and they have never addressed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up in the House for the first time this year to talk about my home province and the importance of this motion to the province of Saskatchewan and its people. To make my colleagues in the Liberal Party aware, I will not take the full 20 minutes, because, as one of the sayings I had in my previous life in sales goes, when everybody is saying yes, maybe we are better off just shutting up, getting on with it and getting it done. I know it is nice to hear that.

It has been interesting listening to the debate in the House. The member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is from Asquith, Saskatchewan. My wife is from Asquith. The Summach family that used to work with Flexi-Coil is from Asquith too. I know that town very well. There are other members who have a relationship with Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan has exported some wonderful people. It is nice to see them showing up in other parts of the country and coming here to the House of Commons and taking on that Saskatchewan spirit. I am sure they are all Riders fans too. Otherwise they could not have come from Saskatchewan.

I will point out that CP and CN are very important to our province. Saskatchewan is an exporting province. We grow more than we could ever consume, so we have to export it. We have to get it to port and they have been there. If it were not for them in the past and going forward into the future, we would not have the province we have today, a vibrant province, and the economy we see in Canada and Saskatchewan, with the growth we are having and the great people who come from there. They are very important to us.

However, in the same breath, $340 million goes a long way in a province. I know that money has been collected and the Province has spent some of it, but do members know what it was spent on? It was spent on hospitals, road crossings, schools and highways. These are the key basics that we need in our province or anywhere else across Canada for the economy to thrive and grow. These are things that give us a better standard of living, a higher quality of living. Furthermore, the people who utilize these facilities are CN and CP employees, so everybody gets the benefit. When we pay taxes, it is not always a bad thing. In fact, on the farm, we used to kind of joke that if we were paying taxes, we had a good year. It is a good sign and means that we are doing well.

In this situation, there was preferential treatment that had run its course. CP had said that it no longer deserved it, and the Province of Saskatchewan unanimously agreed that it had run its course. For CP to come back now and say that it does not want to pay taxes is kind of rich since all the benefits it has received from our province far exceed the $340 million it is asking for. If we think about how much that rail line pulled out of the Province of Saskatchewan, it was billions of dollars over the years and it established the company. A good reason the company is here today is the grain shipments and forestry shipments coming out of western Canada and Saskatchewan in particular. I look at this as righting things and making sure that everything is done properly. It is about making sure that things are fair. That is what we are doing here today.

I always like to see parties come together and agree. We have seen that here today and I have enjoyed it. Even the member for Winnipeg North was agreeing with us today. Now, he had some comments, but he is from Winnipeg North. Having said that, this goes back to my original point: We see agreement.

I talked to the Minister of Justice, and he was on board with this. His only concern with the unanimous consent motion was that we needed to have a day to talk about it, and I agree with him on that. When he explained this to me, it made a lot of sense. This is a constitutional change. This is a big deal, and we do not do this lightly.

I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for bringing forward this opposition day motion so we could talk about it, think it through as a group of colleagues and ask if there are any downsides or upsides. That we actually came to the same conclusion just shows us that the House can work together. I wish more people in Canada could see the House on a day like today when it is functioning properly. I wish more people in Canada could see committees when they function like this, because this happens a lot. Of course, they never see that, and it is unfortunate.

I want to thank all the parties for being good partners with us folks in Saskatchewan, for helping us get this done and for doing something that is important for the people of Saskatchewan. If it is important for the people of Saskatchewan, it is important to the people of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I will once again agree with my colleague. It is important to recognize that in a situation like this, if it is good for Saskatchewan, it is good for Canada, especially when we get something that is of a serious nature for obvious reasons. In the Saskatchewan legislature, it was passed unanimously. When we take a look at the facts, we see the importance of what is being asked, and we should stand up and make a collective statement that we are behind Saskatchewan. It is very much apolitical. It is a very important issue, and it has been a pleasure to hear many of the comments.

Saskatchewan as a province has been really highlighted today, which has been nice to see. Even I have roots connecting to the province of Saskatchewan. It is the birthplace of my mother and older brother, and I worked in the town of Moose Jaw pumping gas when I was 11 years old. We all have connections, directly or indirectly, to this beautiful province.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, will someone pinch me? He agreed with me twice.

I want to thank the member for showing that goodwill, and I want to bite my lip, because we always want to come back in the House of Commons with some sort of jab. I just want to thank him. I appreciate the goodwill that his party is showing toward the people of Saskatchewan. The $330 million staying in the people of Saskatchewan's pockets has been spent wisely and will continue to be spent wisely as they are taxed into the future.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see the cross-party support for this change. People in Saskatchewan need their tax money to go to the public services they rely on, like health care.

Here at the federal level we also know that big corporations have ways of avoiding paying their taxes. We need tougher laws and action from the federal government to stop corporations from using international tax havens to hide their wealth offshore. The government has been in power for six years. It has done absolutely nothing meaningful to close these loopholes for big corporations and the ultra-rich. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada is losing $25 billion a year in tax avoidance. That money should be going to help Canadian families, to increase health transfers or to invest in the low-carbon economy. These companies are cheating hard-working Canadians.

Does the member agree that the government needs to stop helping them do it?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on the point that when companies are cheating, they are cheating, and we have to go after them. If they are breaking the law, stealing or taking money out of our pockets and hiding it in Panama or somewhere else, then we need to do everything we can within the rule of law to get those funds back, because they belong to the people of Canada.

I also think we have to be very cautious when we start talking about general taxation on all corporations, because a lot of corporations pay a lot of taxes. A lot of corporations hire a lot of people. A lot of corporations are the blood, sweat, tears and backbone of our economy here in Canada, so let us make sure everything is done properly and fairly. I would not stress that all corporations are crooked and that all corporations need to pay more taxes. Let us make sure they pay a fair level of taxes and that they are in a situation that allows them to compete globally and provide jobs for people here in Canada.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again on this very important constitutional amendment. We have heard a lot of talk from the member for Winnipeg North on the UC motion that was brought forward in December. Once again, I was the member who brought that UC motion forward. We did have some initial conversations, but hearing everyone today putting their opinions and statements on the record about why they want to support this constitutional amendment for Saskatchewan and support that unanimous decision from the legislature, I think, is an important and good process to go through.

My friend and colleague from Prince Albert is dead on when he said it is great that the House of Commons can work together like this in collaboration to get things done. I wish the people of Canada would see this more often than what we see during the theatrics of question period.

Another thing my friend hit on is what the $350 million has been used for in terms of public services for the people of Saskatchewan. I was an MLA for eight years, and something I would like to put on the record is that probably one of the best initiatives we did was the STARS air ambulance coming to Saskatchewan. It helps everyone across the province from rural Saskatchewan to Regina and Saskatoon, because that helicopter is a lifesaver. When we hear it in the air coming to land, it is a life-saving initiative. We should be very proud, as a province, that we brought that forward.

I wonder if my colleague would like to put a few other comments on the record about how, moving forward, we want to thank our colleagues across the chamber for supporting this initiative and making sure we get this done and ensure this also passes on the floor of the Senate sooner rather than later.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for his tenacity in making sure he continued on to get this done and pushed it through. I appreciate that.

STARS is a really good example, and again it is another example people do not know about where parties worked together in the background to make something succeed. I remember when STARS's Rod Gantefoer, a retired MLA, approached the Saskatchewan caucus and said they needed new helicopters in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I remember the former member for Malpeque and finance chair Wayne Easter asking if there was any way we could get these guys in front of the finance committee as they did the pre-budget consultations. He moved some mountains and he made it happen, because he knew it was the right thing to do. He got it in front of the finance minister and we got some funding for some helicopters.

That is the type of thing Canadians do not hear about, and that is the type of thing they want to hear about. Those are things that are important to Canadians, when parties work together and have the emotional intelligence to put the partisan differences aside and actually get things done for the people of Canada.

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

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.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has been open to ideas from Quebec in the past. I think of the example of a nation within a nation. That is an example of the Harper government actually agreeing to see that go forward on behalf of some of the people from Quebec who wanted to see that. There are examples in the past of Conservatives working with people from Quebec, and we will continue to work with people from Quebec. As long as it is in Canada's interests and Quebec's interests, why would we not?

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to benefits, and there have been huge benefits to having CP in Canada. The original idea is one of the things that brought Canada together as a nation. We can talk about examples of this in Moose Jaw or even go to the north end of Winnipeg with the CP yards. Yes, there is a need for this legislation, but let us not forget many of the positive things this corporation has done for us as a nation. I am wondering if the member could comment on that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. Again, as a farmer, I have a love-hate relationship with railways. When it is 40 below and they do not run, I am really mad.

I will use the example of CP right now. There are cattle producers in southern Alberta who are low on feedstock. CP has stepped up to the plate and I believe has allocated four or five trains of corn to make sure they have enough cattle feed to get their livestock through the winter. CP does do things in the background. I think of Hay West, when we had droughts previously, and CP and CN stepped up and moved bales from Ontario and eastern Canada into western Canada and did not charge anybody a dime.

They have been good corporate citizens in the past and they have been part of building our country. There is no question about that. There will be times when we will be mad at CP and CN, which is the nature of railways, but they are a big and important part of who we are. If they were not there, I do not know what this country would look like.