House of Commons Hansard #26 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was drug.

Topics

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

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the question. I really can.

Often members will stand up after question period and say, “There have been discussions”, but to imply that there have been discussions does not necessarily mean that there was consent. When a member stands up after question period and says, “There have been discussions”, we should never make the assumption that it means there was consent to agree to the motion. I think we do need to take a look at that particular rule in general.

The very first time I heard about that particular motion to any real degree was at the time it was actually being moved, and I sit on the House leadership team. There might have been something taking place during question period, but during question period it is fairly hectic. I would have been more sympathetic, but I still would have suggested a day of debate, at least, on the issue.

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

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the passionate speech given by my colleague from Winnipeg North. There were some real gems in it.

For example, he said that he was proud of the fact that Mr. Trudeau had united Canadians and made them proud. I am not too sure about that, since the average Quebecker remembers 1982 as the year the federal government betrayed them.

The same is true for the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, which the member also mentioned. These are two occasions where the federal government expressly denied Quebec any recognition. Those were two outright denials of Quebec.

My colleague claimed that Canadians were not in the mood for constitutional change at this time. I recognize that we are in a pandemic. I am not crazy and I completely agree with him. However, does he not think that having a nation within Canada that has never signed the Constitution is a problem? Would he want to be forced into a marriage? Would he go along with it? There is an easy question for him.

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

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, when I reflect back on 1982, I would have loved to have seen all provinces sign on to the Constitution. As much as I reflected on my personal history with the province of Saskatchewan, my heritage was actually rooted very strongly in the province of Quebec for many generations. In and around just south of Montreal is where my family originated. Many people living in Saskatchewan today all came from the province of Quebec. There are very passionate, strong feelings from many of my friends and families, who want to make sure that Quebec, like Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions, remains a part of the Canadian family. We have far more in common—

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

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I have heard this member talk about the NDP voting against the Liberals' omnibus bill when they were going to impose some taxes, a very small amount, on the 1%, but they failed in that bill to make sure that Amazon, Google and Facebook would pay their fair share. They failed to close tax havens and end CEO stock loopholes. We have a health care system that is starving right now. We have seen corporate taxes go from 28% to 15% under the Liberal-Conservative coalition to protect the super-wealthy.

Will my colleague start telling Canadians the truth? They promised not to table omnibus bills, but they did, and then they misled Canadians through this story that they are taxing the super-wealthy. Will he work with the NDP on closing tax havens, ending CEO stock loopholes and making sure the ultra-rich and super-wealthy corporations pay their fair share?

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

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, let me tell the member the truth. When I was an MLA in the Manitoba provincial legislature, the NDP continuously, on four, five, or maybe as many as seven occasions, reduced corporate taxes. At the same time, there was a need for health care funding and better management of services. As far as trying to portray the New Democrats as the only ones who fight for tax fairness is concerned, I would suggest that the member might want to do a Hansard search of the Manitoba legislature, where he will find that I was critical of the NDP for its taxation policy, which was not always advantageous to Canada's middle class.

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

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Liberals have taken the time to have discussions with their colleagues over on the other side of the House to ensure that there is a good understanding about what the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan was requiring and asking for.

Would the member agree with Saskatchewan's Minister of Justice that repealing section 24 in the Saskatchewan Act would cement Saskatchewan's place as a truly equal partner in the federation?

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

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, in a very real sense, I believe that all provinces are equal here in Canada. I will stand up and debate that on any day of the week.

Having said that, I recognize that this is something that is important to the Province of Saskatchewan. It is more than just symbolic, and it is the right thing for us to be doing at this point in time.

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

1:20 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's very important speech today.

I want to delve a bit into the UC motion in question that came about in December. As my friend knows, the Province of Saskatchewan passed this legislation on November 21. The UC motion came to Parliament in December, and this is the first time we are having a debate.

I know the member has been a parliamentarian for many years. In terms of Parliamentary practice, how important is it to have a debate on an issue as important as the Constitution?

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

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I would highlight that those who want to get a better understanding and see the actual resolution that passed in the Saskatchewan legislature can always go to the Saskatchewan legislature's website. If they look at the Saskatchewan Hansard for November 29, they will find the debate and the vote that took place, which clearly indicated that the motion was unanimously passed by that legislature. It was a somewhat shorter debate, but there was a debate and an explanation and so forth provided at the Saskatchewan legislature, and one would expect that, because it is a constitutional change.

I believe that we need to revisit the way we use unanimous consent motions. Without any hesitation at all, I think we should never pass a UC motion that deals with the Constitution, given the importance of our constitutional law.

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

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

It has been kind of a history lesson here today. We have heard about the Hudson's Bay Company, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. It has been refreshing to go back over 100 years today as we talk about the Saskatchewan Act.

I give credit to the member for Regina—Lewvan for bringing this very important motion to the House today. I chair the Saskatchewan caucus and, for the second consecutive election, we returned 14 out of 14 Conservative MPs to the House.

It is very important that we open the dialogue today to have a wholesome discussion on the Saskatchewan Act and what it means to my province, which has a population of 1.2 million. When we see CP Rail's profit of $341 million, I do not have to say that $341 million to a population of 1.2 million is a very substantial amount.

We can start way back on October 21, 1880. I am going to give some history, as there has been many history lessons in the House this morning and this afternoon. It was the Government of Canada that entered into the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which we all know back then was trail-blazing. It opened this country up from east to west, part of that was Saskatchewan.

In clause 16 of that 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway company, and that is what we are talking about here today. In 1905, as everyone knows, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created my home province of Saskatchewan. Canadian Pacific Railway has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established. That has been a topic of conversation today, but I want it on the record that it has paid taxes to the Saskatchewan government.

CP is currently attempting, though, to use a clause in the Saskatchewan Act as justification to avoid paying any provincial taxes on its main line. This represents, as I said, an enormous revenue loss for the provincial government and the people of Saskatchewan, which only 1.2 million strong. It is only fair that CP, as a corporate giant, pays its share, on which I think we all agree in the House.

In 1966, Ian Sinclair, then the CP Rail president, agreed to a constitutional amendment to eliminate this tax exemption. The constitutional change is the quick and efficient way to make this happen, and it should happen without delay. The Province of Saskatchewan has adopted the motion to amend the Saskatchewan Act and the Constitution of Canada during the fall sitting.

In December, the Saskatchewan Conservative regional caucus urged the federal government to support the Saskatchewan government's approved motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. Section 24 of the act contains a contentious exemption for Canadian Pacific Railway from various Saskatchewan provincial taxes. In order for this section to be removed, though, a similar motion must now be passed at the federal level, here in the House and also in the Senate. That is why Canada's Conservatives are calling on the federal government to listen to the Saskatchewan government and support the motion that we have put forward today in the House to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act.

The tax loss to Saskatchewan would hurt provincial services if the Liberal government refuses to stand up for tax fairness and ensure that CP Rail pays its fair share to the people of Saskatchewan. CP Rail, as I mentioned, is a corporate giant. There is no reason it should enjoy an exemption from provincial taxes. There is also no reason the government should delay responding to the provincial government's request.

Canada's Conservatives are always on Saskatchewan's side. Those tax dollars need to stay right at home in my province of Saskatchewan.

CP Rail and the Saskatchewan government have been engaged now for about 13 years in a legal battle with the railway seeking roughly $341 million. It is coming out now because the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan passed a motion unanimously on November 29, 2021.

In Saskatchewan legislature, just to fill us in, there are only two parties. The Saskatchewan Party is the official government and the official opposition is the NDP. Here we have the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP agreeing on one thing, that the Saskatchewan Act has to come to the House of Commons and later to the Senate.

I have spoken to the Saskatchewan justice minister, Gordon Wyant, a couple of times, dealing with the Saskatchewan Act. The Saskatchewan justice minister was quoted as saying, and I quote, “We are going to vigorously defend the claim that has been brought by the railway to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan”. This resolution needs to be approved by the federal government, passed through the House of Commons right here in front of 338 members, and then on to the Senate.

Minister Wyant has had conversations, I know, with the federal justice minister on the issue of the Saskatchewan Act. We are hoping today that the motion will move forward. It is my understanding that several MLAs in my province have even reached out to Saskatchewan senators to start the dialogue. If we can pass the motion through here, it goes to the Senate. The conversations have started not only here today in the House of Commons, but also, more importantly, in the Senate where they will have to deal with this.

As members of the House are likely aware, CP Rail is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for the $341 million. They claim a broad tax exemption under section 24. This matter is currently before the courts, so most of us really do not want to talk about that, because it is before the court.

Therefore, the Government of Saskatchewan believes that today it is time to repeal section 24 regardless of whether it is in force or not. If the tax exemption remains in force, I do not have to tell the members of the House, it creates a substantial inequity within our own province. $341 million would be eliminated from the taxes of only 1.2 million in our province. As a matter of the tax policy and business competitiveness, there must be a level playing field for all businesses in our province of Saskatchewan.

We all agree that all businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, and by supporting this motion, it would send a strong signal to my province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewanians desperately want the motion today regarding the Saskatchewan Act passed. It would show federal support from that side of the house and the opposition parties. It would show that we do care about the province of Saskatchewan.

This is an important motion put forward today by the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. He was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature before he became a member of Parliament. He knows very well the pressures on the provincial government in Saskatchewan. He was in their caucus for a number of years and he knows first-hand that Saskatchewan, being a small province, does not have a lot of corporate businesses. CP Rail is one of the biggest, and as has been mentioned today, it makes a lot of profit. Profit is good, but at the same time, CP Rail must pay its fair share of taxes.

On behalf of residents of Saskatoon—Grasswood, it has been a pleasure to speak to the motion moved by the member for Regina—Lewvan on the Saskatchewan Act.

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

1:35 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood that the Saskatchewan caucus in our party is absolutely supportive of this motion, and of course, our government is supporting this going forward.

I do want to ask the member about the Senate. I know there is an independent group of senators in the Senate. What kind of measures and discussions has the opposition had with senators to get this through the Senate?

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

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from across the aisle. We are here today in the House talking about the Saskatchewan Act. It would be premature for many of us to reach out to any of the senators.

However, I can tell the hon. member there has been discussions from MLAs, maybe a couple of the MPs from Saskatchewan too, and our only Conservative senator in the Senate. We have five senators from Saskatchewan. They have signed a letter of intent. I have not seen that letter, but before Christmas I understand they did sign the letter and that is the first step moving forward in the Senate.

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

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, we agree that Saskatchewan should get its due from Canadian Pacific, because it has been owed for a long time. As I was saying earlier, Canadian Pacific received free land and tax exemptions, among other benefits.

Furthermore, I hope someone has been in touch with the Senate, and that no one in the other place has a vested interest in Canadian National that would make it possible for CN to avoid paying taxes in Saskatchewan.

I hope everyone in the Senate realizes that these taxes are owed to the people. CN has had enough benefits.

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

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, I think the dialogue really started on November 29, 2021, in the legislature in Saskatchewan with unanimous consent on the Saskatchewan Act. That includes the NDP and the Saskatchewan Party, which has several Conservative and Liberal members in it, as it forms the majority in our province.

They have reached out I am sure. Gordon Wyant, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, has reached out to the justice minister, and I am sure they have had conversations in the Senate. Unfortunately, we only have five senators. We can have that discussion, hopefully after this motion passes, and maybe we can talk to all 105 senators to feel them out on the Saskatchewan Act.

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

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. As we do know, the Senate has tabled a motion very similar to the motion that was tabled here in the House of Commons, so they will be ready to move on that hopefully as soon as we have broad support from all parties when we vote tomorrow.

How does the member think that some of the money we would be saving from CP could be used better for taxpayers in Saskatchewan? Where could some of that money go? We all agree that corporations should pay their fair share.

I want to tell the people of Saskatchewan that we are here for them, and we are always going to be on their side. I would like the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood to explain what he could do with some of that money and where it could be better spent.

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

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for his advocacy on this. He has been stellar for the province of Saskatchewan in bringing this motion forward today as an opposition day motion. The Conservative government will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that is what we are talking about here. The province of Saskatchewan is very small in population.

What could we do with that $341 million? I am not the finance minister, but if I were the finance minister of Saskatchewan, I am sure I would quickly have a list from Regina to Saskatoon.

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

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, for his excellent history lesson and for representing the city of Saskatoon and the great aspects of that. I will try to speak a little more to rural aspects of the impact of this.

It is my honour to rise in the House to speak on today's opposition motion regarding the amendment to the Saskatchewan Act in our Constitution, to repeal Section 24. While it has been some time since I have been able to physically be here in the House of Commons chamber, I feel very fortunate to be present today and am happy to see everyone's faces in person rather than through a screen. I know that, just like me, many Canadians are also looking forward to a return of some normalcy after the tumultuous last two years.

As this is my first speech in the House in this 44th Parliament, I would like to thank the great constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain for re-electing me for the third time. Like all Canadians, they are experiencing and living with the frustrations and inconsistencies of the government, as well as with the many inconsistencies that have existed in our national legislation.

Today's motion is just another example of that, and how it treats Saskatchewan differently from other provinces. Today's motion is extremely important for a number of reasons, and I am grateful to have a chance to speak on it in support of my provincial counterparts in the Saskatchewan legislature. I would like to thank all of the MLAs, their staff, the experts and the leaders at the provincial level who worked diligently to ensure that this issue was brought to Ottawa so that it could be addressed at the federal level.

I know that I and my colleagues in the Conservative Saskatchewan caucus will do everything in our power to compel the government to act swiftly and decisively on the matter, and to end the unfair tax exemption given to the Canadian Pacific Railway, CPR.

I would just like to point out that this is a great example of political unity, as the motion to repeal section 24 was unanimously supported by all members of the Saskatchewan legislature. They were able to put their differences aside and see the benefits that this motion had for the entirety of our province, regardless of political affiliation. This is the kind of thing that Canadians want to see here in this Parliament, yet the federal level blocked the original version of this motion, prolonging the process even further.

The stalling on this matter only serves to deepen the divide that the Prime Minister has already created with western Canadians. Canadians expect their government to work together: to come up with ideas, to discuss, to debate and to resolve issues. I hear from many of my constituents that they expect to see a little give-and-take in a minority government, not the “my way or the highway” approach that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have shown. We could just look out at Wellington Street to see how well that attitude is working.

What this issue really comes down to is fairness. Every corporation in this country is required to pay taxes, so it is simply not fair to require all other businesses to pay while the CPR receives an exemption. This situation is in Saskatchewan alone, thanks to section 24. The CPR is a large profitable corporation, and in this day and age it should not have a competitive advantage over other transportation companies because of a 140-year-old contract. All Saskatchewan businesses, small and large, deserve a level playing field.

Speaking of fairness, exempting the CPR from paying taxes means that everyone else has to make up the difference and pay more than their fair share. As I previously stated, this puts all other transportation companies at a competitive disadvantage, something that is rarely a benefit to the regional or national economy. Competitiveness is an integral part of the fabric of Canada's economy, and we need to foster and encourage it in every logical sense.

Ultimately, every Saskatchewan small business, every Saskatchewan professional, every Saskatchewan employee, union or non-union, every farmer, every rancher, every trucker, every Saskatchewanian will have to pay out of their pocket if this is allowed to linger.

One of the phrases I often use in my speeches here in the House is the trickle-down effect, and it is certainly relevant in discussing this tax exemption. If the CPR is tax exempt, that means everyone else pays extra. While on the surface it may look like this only affects other large transportation companies, the trickle-down effect means that each and every resident of Saskatchewan would have to help foot the costs through increased taxes of their own. When one adds the continuous raising of taxes such as CPP, EI and the Liberal carbon tax, life quickly becomes unaffordable. This is not to mention the increased costs to local communities, RMs, towns and villages due to the RCMP pay increases that are being downloaded to them.

In my riding, an increase to already high living expenses is the very last thing that residents need, but it is unfortunately what they have come to expect under the Liberal government. Many communities have already suffered due to things such as the Liberal phase-out of coal-fired power, and the government's unfulfilled promises to those affected by it. People are experiencing fear and uncertainty for their futures, and the threat of higher taxes only makes that worse.

The Just Transition Task Force gives money for groups to study the transition, but little for the future. Putting some money up to fix roads may help, but when all the young people move away to find jobs elsewhere in the country, who will pay the taxes to keep these businesses and roads in good condition?

There is also the matter of how keeping section 24 could hurt small businesses across the province, including those in communities that are already grappling with how to make ends meet. I cannot stress enough the importance of small businesses in my riding. In rural areas such as Souris—Moose Mountain, they do not just serve as places to buy necessities. They are also informal gathering places for the community, and many small business owners generously give back to that community when they are able to.

We need to do everything in our power to ensure that our businesses stay viable, especially following the hard two years because of the pandemic. I know that we Conservatives are intent on ensuring that not one cent of tax revenue owed by a profitable corporation is picked up by the Saskatchewan people, and I hope the Liberals are as well.

The respect for, and support of, jurisdictional authority is fundamental to the successful operation of this country. In matters such as this, it only makes sense to allow any individual province to unilaterally amend the section of the Constitution that deals exclusively with its own internal governance, and we Conservatives support this measure.

Furthermore, Saskatchewan is the only province in the country that is having to rectify an issue such as this one, which should provide even more incentive for the federal government to do whatever is possible to level the playing field.

As MLA Wyant stated in his remarks to the Saskatchewan Legislature on November 29, 2021:

Section 24 is a relic of an earlier time when Saskatchewan was not treated as an equal partner in Confederation.

My province and its residents should not be penalized simply because Saskatchewan entered Confederation in 1905 rather than in 1880, when this contract with the CPR was signed. Unfortunately, many people of Saskatchewan have lost faith in the federal government's ability to treat them equally or to act in their best interests.

The Prime Minister says a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, but I can tell you that my constituents do not remotely feel that. They are not even equally treated by the Liberals. That is evident from the fact that the candidate they had in the last two elections never showed up during the debate, or at any time in the riding, and received less than 4% of the vote.

The Prime Minister continues to talk the talk, but fails to walk the walk and the divide between western Canadians and the rest of Canada keeps getting wider. One only needs to walk outside to see how badly the Liberals have failed to foster any sense of national unity. They sit on their hands and make empty promises. It is no wonder that western Canadians are feeling disillusioned by a government that continually ignores them.

It is also on the current government to make progress on reducing outdated and ineffective red tape, so that other jurisdictions will not have to deal with issues like this in the future. This is a win-win-win situation: The federal government gets to remove some red tape. The province has clarity on the matter going forward. The people of Saskatchewan will not have to pay increased taxes because of the exemption to a profitable company. I can see no reason why the Liberals would block this motion, unless it is to punish the people of Saskatchewan for not giving them a single seat in the last two elections. They may say otherwise, but based on their past disregard for the west, it is not difficult to read between the lines.

To briefly quote MLA Wotherspoon from the Saskatchewan legislature, “The elimination of this jurisdictional inequality is important”. We agree with that. Saskatchewan deserves the same recognition from the federal government as all other provinces and territories, and until this motion is passed the province will remain at a disadvantage.

In conclusion, it is truly in the best interests of all parties to take the lead set by members of the Saskatchewan legislature and vote unanimously in favour of today's motion. It will only have positive implications and increased fairness for Saskatchewan's businesses and individuals. I call on the Liberals to do the right thing and vote in favour of repealing section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act.

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

1:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand the speech that the member has just delivered. One would think he had given it on the assumption that the government was not supporting the motion. The government has been very supportive of all things within Saskatchewan. Here we have a motion that is rooted in an all-party, unanimously supported motion from the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature, which we have said that we are supporting. That means we are voting in favour of the motion.

I do not know why the member espouses hatred from this government toward the people of Saskatchewan or the west. I am from the west, and I think that things are looking better today than they were during the Stephen Harper era. Why will he not recognize a good thing and support the Liberals supporting—

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

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

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

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his illusional thought, because the history of the government has indicated that the Liberals do not show that support for the west. Perhaps forgive me if I do not take the member at his word, but until I see that hand raised during a vote, I do not trust the Liberals to say what they are going to say. Canadians in western Canada and in my riding do not trust the current government.

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

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

We do not raise hands to vote in this chamber.

The hon. member for Drummond.

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

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I made a note of that for later.

I echo what the member for Winnipeg North said a few minutes ago. There seems to be a consensus on this motion, and yet the Conservatives still thought it was a good idea to make this the subject of an opposition day. My question is mainly one of curiosity.

After the motion is adopted by the House of Commons, what other obstacles are our colleagues concerned about in this file?

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

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's point. Ultimately, there is a lot that we need to move forward with in the government and in this Parliament. What I am trying to get through is that Canadians want to hear that. They want to see people sitting around and talking. They want to see, in a minority government, this individual coming up with an idea, us coming up with an idea and the Liberals coming up with an idea, discussing that around the table and then bandying it about so that we can have a uniform answer. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that.

The prime example is what we see with the truckers on the street. Some of them just want to be heard and have that conversation, such that we can put that out as a uniform package as opposed to one group individually.

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

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to stand today as a person born in Saskatoon who spent many summers at my grandfather's farm in Asquith, Saskatchewan. I just want to give a shout-out to the Saskatchewan NDP members who have been fighting for this for years, and I thank all of the House for what looks like it could be a unanimous vote on this.

Does my colleague agree that there are opportunities to close tax loopholes for other large corporations that are benefiting off the backs of Canadians right now?