Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

Foreign Affairs

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the current policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, four treaties.

The first is the “Convention on the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation”, adopted at Kuala Lumpur on February 28, 2020.

The second is the “Agreement on Social Security between Canada and the Argentine Republic”, done at Buenos Aires on August 13, 2021.

The third is the “Agreement on Social Security Between Canada and the Republic of Austria”, done at Vienna on July 5, 2021.

The fourth is the “Antarctic Treaty”, done at Washington on December 1, 1959.

Old Age Security Act

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Public Accounts

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following nine reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The first report is entitled “Report 1, Procuring Complex Information Technology Solutions of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The second report is entitled “Report 2, National Shipbuilding Strategy, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The third report is entitled “Report 3, Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities—Indigenous Services Canada, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The fourth report is entitled “Report 4, Canada Child Benefit—Canada Revenue Agency, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The fifth report is entitled “Report 5, Follow-up Audit on Rail Safety—Transport Canada, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The sixth report is entitled “Report 6, Canada Emergency Response Benefit, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The seventh report is entitled “Report 7, Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The eighth report is entitled “Report 8, Pandemic Preparedness, Surveillance, and Border Control Measures, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

The ninth report is entitled “Report 9, Investing in Canada Plan, of the 2021 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these reports. All of them are signed in both official languages.

Income Tax Act

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber today to introduce my bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to allow a deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons. By 2025, Canada will need an additional 350,000 tradespeople to fill this void. I look forward to working with all parties in this place to pass this important legislation and give the necessary support for our tradespersons across the country when they must travel for work.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Reuniting Families Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce the reuniting Canadian families act. In 2012, the Conservative government brought in a super visa, a 10-year multiple-entry visa, to allow parents and grandparents to reunite with their families here in Canada. From the ensuing 10 years, we know improvements are needed to it.

This bill would allow people to stay for five years over 10 years. It would allow the purchase of insurance from a foreign country to reduce the cost of buying health insurance, which is a prerequisite for a super visa. Finally, it would require the government to deliver a plan to reduce the low-income cut-off so that more families can qualify for the super visa.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Ending the Use of Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce my PMB, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains. The seconder, and indeed the author of the bill, is my good friend, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

Manufacturers looking to maximize their profits often buy products made in countries where labour is cheap, but in countries where labour is cheap, labour standards may be low or non-existent. Perhaps worst of all, products might be made using either child labour or forced labour. I think many companies and consumers would prefer not to look too closely at the labour practices that went into the products they buy. This bill, if passed, would require big companies to look into their supply chains and file a public report yearly identifying the parts of the supply chains where there is a risk of child labour or forced labour and report what the company has done to address those risks.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Copyright Act

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, one part of our right to repair system in Canada.

I would like to start off by saying that this bill was previously tabled in February 2021 by my hon. colleague, the member for Cambridge, and made it through the committee studies. It is my honour to bring this bill back in the 44th Parliament because it is still critical to the protection of Canadian consumers and our environment.

The bill is aimed at addressing copyright that is being used to stop Canadians from repairing and maintaining items that have been purchased and are owned by Canadians. It is a targeted bill that creates specific exemptions to copyright. When an individual makes a purchase of an item, the owner should have a right to repair it and not be restricted by the manufacturer. Being able to repair the items we own is critical to the well-being of our environment.

Canada has the ability to be an international leader in sustainable consumerism and act as a model on how to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle with the things we buy. Canadians work hard to purchase the things they own and should have a right to repair these items as well.

I look forward to the debate and the support of my colleagues in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Infrastructure Bank Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present my bill, an act to amend the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act. This bill leverages public ownership in the fight against climate change and in support of the most marginalized communities in our country, including indigenous and northern communities.

Catastrophic climate change is a threat to our survival. Indigenous and northern communities are already paying the price. Regions like ours have already been living the devastating impacts of climate change, and we do not have the infrastructure and resources needed to respond.

From the need to transition away from diesel-generated power to the need for all-weather roads, fire protection and flood and drought mitigation, indigenous and northern communities need infrastructure support now. It is clear the fight against climate change requires bold, collective action.

The Infrastructure Bank was designed by billionaires for billionaires, and it is time to change that. The Canada Infrastructure Bank must be part of the solution by doing away with for-profit private agendas, focusing on investing public funds through green bonds and ensuring indigenous representation and transparency. It is time Canada put people over profit and built up the infrastructure we need to fight climate change.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Constitution Act, 1867

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons).

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a distinct society and encouraged the government to be guided accordingly in its conduct. In 2006, the House recognized that Quebeckers form a nation. In June 2021, the House reiterated that recognition by adding that it also recognized Quebec's jurisdiction and will to amend its constitution to enshrine in it not only the fact that Quebec is nation but also that French is the only official language of Quebec and the common language of the Quebec nation.

Recognizing the Quebec nation automatically means acknowledging that Quebec must be properly represented here in the House of Commons. That is the purpose of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Prohibition of Fur Farming Act

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, An Act to prohibit fur farming.

Mr. Speaker, commercial fur farming is cruel to the animals that face horrible conditions every day, and it poses a real risk to human health, including pandemic risk. Many countries have already put an end to this practice and Canada should do the same. Animal science experts describe the filthy and cramped conditions as inherently inhumane. Infectious disease experts describe commercial fur farming as a hazardous practice that poses serious risks to human health because of the transmission of viruses between animals and people, and the very real threat of viral mutations.

In phasing out mink farming, B.C.'s provincial health officer declared it a “health hazard”. It is not only B.C., of course. The U.K. banned commercial fur farming over two decades ago, and many other countries have implemented similar bans since. It is now time for Canada to end the cruel and dangerous practice of commercial fur farming, and that is exactly what this legislation would do.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Hidden Disabilities

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first petition, e-3704, is on a symbol for hidden disabilities. The international disability symbol of access iconographically excludes the hidden disability community. Collectively, hidden disabilities are represented less than detectable disabilities in research and advocacy, yet they affect more people. Different identifiable disability icons, symbols and memes are used in a number of countries through various models.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to adopt and promote a national hidden disability symbol and to participate in actions toward its international adoption.

Fashion Industry

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, e-3725, is from the Canada Fashion Network. We must identify fashion as a form of art. The fashion industry is diminishing, and is crucial to our national identity and our diverse population. There are several ongoing unaddressed issues, such as cultural awareness and appropriation. If promoted, opportunities for Canada are exponential both nationally and internationally. The petitioners request that the government pass legislation to promote Canadian fashion in the national interest, and that it add the Canada Fashion Network to the list of organizations that make up the Canadian Heritage portfolio.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of conscience is a fundamental right clearly articulated in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have the honour to table several petitions signed by hundreds of citizens across Canada who call upon Parliament to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals from coercion or intimidation to provide, or refer patients for, assisted suicide or euthanasia. I thank these Canadians for their engagement on this important issue.

Bradford Bypass

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling petition e-3766 today. The petition has been signed by Canadians across the country, but primarily residents of York Region and the riding I represent: Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. They are very concerned by the Province of Ontario's decision to move forward with the construction of the Bradford Bypass without adequate environmental consideration of proposed routes or possible alternatives. The petitioners request that the connector highway known as the Bradford Bypass be designated by the Minister of Environment for a federal impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. The existing assessment was done over 25 years ago, in 1997, and on October 7 of last year, the Ontario government exempted this project from a provincial environmental assessment.

The petitioners note that the bypass will result in adverse environmental effects within several jurisdictions. They argue that the bypass, which cuts across the environmentally sensitive Holland Marsh, including wetlands and farm lands in the Greenbelt and the Lake Simcoe headlands, would bring an average daily traffic of approximately 58,000 vehicles. They argue this would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, add to phosphorus pollution, destroy wetlands and forests, threaten species at risk and allow more levels of road salt to flow into Lake Simcoe, which would endanger fish habitats. It would also destroy one of Canada's most significant historical sites: the Lower Landing, which is of great importance to first nations.

The bottom line is that these petitioners are asking the federal government to do its duty, because the Province of Ontario did not. It is the Government of Canada's duty and responsibility to deliver on both ensuring the climate change targets that Canada committed to on the international stage and, more importantly, ensuring that we do everything we can to protect our fragile ecosystem.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before continuing, I want to remind the hon. members to be as concise as possible. It is a very brief outline of what the petition puts forward. I just wanted to remind everyone.

Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

Firearms

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of being concise, I rise today to present a petition that supports the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms, and they are concerned about the impact of hearing loss caused by the damaging noise levels of firearms and the need for noise reduction.

The petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety device that is criminally prohibited in Canada. Moreover, the majority of G7 countries have recognized the benefits of sound moderators and allow them for hunting, sport shooting and reducing noise pollution. The petitioners call on the government to allow legal firearms owners to purchase and use sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.

The Environment

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise virtually in the House today on behalf of several Prince Edward Islanders to present this code red petition. These Canadians are extremely concerned about the climate emergency, and they are calling upon the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation to reduce emissions by at least 60% from 2005 levels, to create good, green jobs, to drive inclusive workforce development, to protect and strengthen human rights and workers' rights, and to expand the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit countrywide.

I appreciate this opportunity.

Housing

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to table this petition on behalf of residents of Cumberland, Courtenay, Parksville and Port Alberni.

The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the estimated 235,000 people in Canada who experience homelessness every year. Canada's commitment to reduce homelessness right now by 50% over 10 years would still leave 117,500 Canadians homeless each year. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to take immediate action by officially recognizing that housing is a human right, and to develop a plan to end and prevent homelessness in Canada.

Middle East

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

First, over 1,500 Canadians have signed a petition raising concerns about Israel's designation of six leading Palestinian civil society organizations as terrorist organizations. They note the concerns raised by the UN special rapporteurs condemning the designation, and they call on the Government of Canada to call upon Israeli authorities to immediately rescind the designations and to end all efforts aimed at delegitimizing and criminalizing Palestinian human rights defenders.

Religious Freedom

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by almost 1,000 Canadians. They are calling attention to the fact that non-believers are persecuted in several countries, both by governments and the public. The petitioners note that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

They call upon the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to clarify the status of the less complex claims policy, and to ensure that non-believers are included in the list of people eligible for any special refugee status so that they will be treated equally with those people belonging to the religions listed in the less complex claims policy.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C‑10—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 1, 2022, by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

During his intervention, the member argued that the Prime Minister had spoken about the bill in detail during a press conference held the day before. At that time, the bill was on notice and had not been introduced in the House. The member said that the bill is simply entitled “An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19”.

He added that the Prime Minister had provided details by indicating that the government was going to present a bill to continue to offer the greatest possible number of rapid tests to the provinces and territories. He also said that such a disclosure breached the convention that members must be the first to learn the details of legislative measures and thus constituted contempt.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader responded that the Prime Minister had only spoken about the bill in general terms and had not disclosed any specific details. He also said that sharing a draft of the bill with the opposition parties before its introduction satisfied the requirement that members must be the first to be informed of such measures.

The convention that members have a right to first access to legislation is a well-established practice. Looking at the relevant precedents, including those cited by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the Chair notes in particular that, when a premature disclosure was ruled to be a prima facie breach of privilege, precise details had been disclosed. These provided evidence that the contents of the bill had indeed been shared before they were disclosed in the House.

In the case before us, the Chair must determine whether the information provided by the Prime Minister at the press conference constitutes a disclosure of the contents of the bill, which would be, at first glance, a breach of the privileges of members or of the dignity of the House.

Bill C‑10 is relatively short and contains only two clauses. The purpose is simple. The first clause specifies the maximum amount that can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purchase of rapid tests. The second concerns the distribution of these rapid tests to the provinces and territories. The second aspect of the bill has been part of public discourse for some time now.

It is the view of the Chair that the Prime Minister’s statement does not give way for the Chair to conclude that there was a breach of the privileges of the House nor to give the matter precedence over all other business of the House. Thus, I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

In closing, I would like to point out that the disclosure of bills before they are presented in the House has recently been the subject of several questions of privilege. A new practice also seems to have been established in which the government shares certain bills with the opposition before they are introduced. As such, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to review these elements and, if necessary, share its findings with the House.

I thank the members for their attention.

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

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

moved:

Whereas on October 21, 1880, the Government of Canada entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway;

Whereas, by clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company;

Whereas, in 1905, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan;

Whereas section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act refers to clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway Contract;

Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie, and has been operating as a going concern for 136 years;

Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the Province was established in 1905;

Whereas it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting that tax burden onto the residents of Saskatchewan;

Whereas it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses, to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in the Province;

Whereas it would not be consistent with Saskatchewan's position as an equal partner in Confederation if there were restrictions on its taxing powers that do not apply to other provinces;

Whereas on August 29, 1966, the then President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the Board of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption;

Whereas section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on November 29, 2021, adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada;

Now, therefore, the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexed schedule.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1. Section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is repealed.

2. The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.

CITATION

3. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Saskatchewan Act).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand to present the motion today and lead off the debate.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I am happy to hear her comments put on the record as well. We will have a lot of Saskatchewan content in the chamber today. I feel that more common sense from Saskatchewan is always a good thing.

I want to talk to the members in the chamber today about why this motion is important. There are two defining reasons why we should be passing this unanimously. One is for tax fairness. I believe the taxpayers of Saskatchewan should not be forced to pay an additional dollars to a profitable corporation. Second, it is about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I believe all colleagues can appreciate that. I think we have a duty in this chamber to respect what has been done in provincial legislatures across the country. We know that this passed unanimously in the Saskatchewan legislature last fall.

I brought forward a unanimous consent motion, but I appreciate that the member for Winnipeg North and the justice minister wanted to have debate on the floor of the House of Commons about why this motion is important and why it should be passed. It is with respect to their wishes that we brought forward this motion today so we would have that conversation, have that debate and have comments put on the record as to why this is a necessary motion. Hopefully, after today there will be a vote on this motion and we can move it to the Senate. Then this could be passed in respect to the wishes of the people of Saskatchewan.

I have some thanks to give. My thanks to the minister of justice in Saskatchewan, Gordon Wyant, who put this motion forward in that legislative chamber. I have also talked with some of the NDP MLAs in Saskatchewan, my home province. I was a member of the legislative assembly there, and Trent Wotherspoon has said he has communicated with the NDP in the House of Commons. I believe they will be on board with this motion as well because they should respect what their provincial colleagues have done.

I hope this will be a good and thorough debate about why we, as legislators, should respect the provincial jurisdiction of what is going on. I want to put on the record that I think it is very important that we have the proper tone. Decorum in this House has left a little bit to be desired.

The motion today was put forward by the opposition so that we can all get together and have a good conversation to show the people of Canada that we can work together. We have done it in the past. We can work together and get things done more quickly and not see some of the holdups we have seen in the past with some of the bills put forward because of partisan politics.

These are the conversations we have been having over the last couple months. I put forward a unanimous consent motion that was denied, so hopefully that will not happen again with this motion before I back home to Saskatchewan.

Talking about the people of Saskatchewan, this is important to them because they think it is time that Ottawa listens to some of their concerns around tax fairness. Obviously, we have seen that the price of everything has been going up and inflation is increasing everywhere. They want to know that we are listening. My number one job when I stand in the House of Commons representing the people of Regina—Lewvan is to put forward their interests and make sure that I am a voice for them. This is something that I feel is very important. They feel, like I said previously, that they should not have to pay an extra dollar for a profitable corporation.

We went through the motion. For a little more background, this is a constitutional amendment. That is not unheard of, as B.C. has done this, as well as Alberta, and through this very process. We are not breaking new ground. We know this has been done before, amending provincial constitutions through motions and agreement with parties in the chamber and in the Senate. I believe this is something that can be done again.

We really want to make sure that people realize that this is an outdated exemption. It dates back to 1880. It was something where the government at the time made a deal with CP Rail. It is something where they were exempt from paying taxes. Going back to 1880 makes it 116 years old. CP and the Saskatchewan government have been engaged in a battle over this for the last 13 years.

For CP, that is something that will be ongoing. This will affect that going forward. That court case will be settled in the courts. It will not be settled here today, but we will make sure that we get this exemption done and off the books so that something like this does not come up again.

On November 29, the justice minister introduced the motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act in the legislature. Like I said, it has been a few months. I believe my colleagues across the way on the government side have had an opportunity to look at it and are in agreement with this motion going forward. The resolution will be passed by the government and the Senate.

I want to put on the record today a comment made by the minister of justice in Saskatchewan. He said, “We're going to vigorously defend the claim that's been brought by the railway to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan”. When it comes down to it, today we are trying to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what I will always do.

When I talk to the people of Regina—Lewvan, I tell them that I will always be on Saskatchewan's side. This motion shows both that commitment to the people who have sent us to the legislature and that we have the ability to get things done. Sometimes I am asked in my hometown of Regina if I can move the yardstick being in opposition, if I can get things done. This is an example of how, working with all parties, we can get something done for the people of Saskatchewan and make sure they do not pay a cent in tax that should be paid by profitable corporations.

In a few conversations with people back home over Christmas, they were really interested in what the problem with this could be. I am hoping that, if the other parties, the Liberals, NDP or Bloc, do have concerns, they put them on floor of the House of Commons today. We can then answer those concerns, and we can work together to ensure this will be moved forward. It is very important that we make sure outdated legislation is changed.

I believe it was an oversight because in 1966, as it says in the motion, there was a handshake agreement between CP Rail and the government of the day to get this exemption off the books. Sometimes there are small oversights, so we are going to fix a past mistake that was overlooked and ensure that everyone knows what the rules are going forward. Canadians are really looking for some certainty and making sure we are doing what we can to make legislation clear. Passing this motion so that oversight is fixed and that exemption is taken off the books of CP Rail is what today is about.

This is about tax fairness for the people of my province, and I am looking forward to hearing the debates of my other colleagues from Saskatchewan. It is about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I think a lot of members in the chamber agree with this and will make sure we work together to get this motion passed. I believe everyone in this House thinks provincial jurisdiction should be respected, and when it comes to tax fairness, I think everyone in the House would agree that people in our home provinces should not be paying for profitable corporations. When I go home, I will be happy to have conversations with the people of Regina—Lewvan and tell them this is one thing we did together.

When they watch the news, sometimes all they see is the combativeness among opposition parties. They watch question period and think all we do is argue and not get answers from our colleagues across the way. Through this motion and the debates today, I want to show there is co-operation at times.

I am hoping my government and opposition colleagues will help us to make sure this is fair for Saskatchewan. I am proud to say that I will always be on Saskatchewan's side, and that is what this motion is about.