Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #20

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to resume the debate today on the opposition motion and see unanimity between the government and the official opposition party.

I was talking earlier about our support for the Province of Saskatchewan throughout COVID. Some of the numbers I announced or detailed earlier are that more than 240,000 Saskatchewan residents received support through the Canada emergency benefit at some point. That is approximately 20% of the population. In addition, Saskatchewan is receiving $1.3 billion through the Canada health transfer and nearly $500 million this fiscal year through the Canada social transfer.

Canada works best when governments work collaboratively and in the interests of Canadians. In this regard, I would like to point out that the land of the living skies is one of the jurisdictions the federal government has entered into an agreement with to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

I want to point out the fact that during the election in 2021, the Conservatives campaigned against this early learning child care system. In fact, they would have scrapped it had they won. However, they did not win, and we are proceeding forward, with all provinces and territories having signed, except for the Province of Ontario. I encourage the Province of Ontario to come to an agreement with our government. I have a great respect for all the ministers involved, who are working judiciously and diligently, and I know that at a certain point in time we will get there.

I would like to announce that all Canadians will be covered, hopefully sooner than later, with a national early learning and day care plan. That is not only good for the economy, which I talk about quite a bit in this place, but is great for families, including my own. With a four-month-old at home, I hope to take advantage and have the opportunity to utilize lower day care fees, especially in the area of York Region, where fees can be anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 a month in after-tax dollars. By the end of this year, Saskatchewan families will see a 50% reduction in average parent fees for children under the age of six in regulated child care. That is real progress with respect to affordability for Canadian families, in this case Saskatchewan families.

In addition to significantly reducing the costs of child care, federal funding of close to $1.1 billion over the next five years will also lead to the creation of 28,000 new regulated early learning and child care spaces in that beautiful province.

Providing services to the public requires an ongoing commitment on the part of governments to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. This is something we need to keep in mind as we look at the provincial government's request. I support the province's request to amend the Saskatchewan Act. This amendment would be made under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982, because this change affects only one province.

This amending formula has been used before. For example, it allowed enshrining the equality of New Brunswick's English and French linguistic communities in the Canadian Constitution. It allowed for the construction of the Confederation Bridge to replace the requirement for a ferry service to Prince Edward Island. It allowed Quebec to abolish its Catholic and Protestant school boards and replace them with an education system organized along linguistic lines. It allowed for the name of the Province of Newfoundland to be changed to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In all these cases, the provincial legislatures adopted the change, and the House of Commons and the Senate did the same after considering the matter judiciously, as we are doing today.

These changes reflect what Canada is today, and so does Saskatchewan's request. The amendment would strengthen the fairness of Canada's tax framework, as our government has done and has continued to do since 2015, when in our first mandate we raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians because it was the right thing to do. We also brought in two middle-class tax cuts, one in 2015 and one in 2019, which have returned literally billions of dollars to middle-class Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Saskatchewan is one of our partners in Confederation, and it can be sure that the federal government is there to support it, not only in this matter but also in getting through the pandemic.

Those are my remarks this afternoon. I look forward to entertaining questions and comments from my hon. colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to ask a question of the hon. member.

Certainly in the province neighbouring Saskatchewan, I hear each and every day about the deep divisions within our country. I am encouraged that the Liberals appear to be supporting this measure to help ensure that our provinces actually have a voice.

My question for the member is quite simple. Would he support other measures to help ensure that we can actually unify this country at a time when it has never been more divided than it is now?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at an amendment to the Canadian Constitution and the Saskatchewan Act, it is the right thing to do to work with the provinces.

A collaborative fiscal federation, which Canada is, requires responsible leadership. That is what our government has demonstrated on this file by working with the Province of Saskatchewan and the official opposition and ensuring that the province's requests are listened to and acted upon. This is the right thing to do for the Province of Saskatchewan and all the wonderful people who currently reside in that province.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him a general question about this correction to the outdated tax exemption. We do not oppose this, quite the contrary.

However, I would like him to comment on the possibility of Quebec also enshrining certain things in the Constitution, specifically something adopted by the House in the previous Parliament that identified Quebec as a francophone nation with a single common language, French.

I imagine that, if my colleague agrees with the proposal for Saskatchewan, then he also supports the Quebec proposal.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I want to comment on the importance of the French language for me and my family. Since I was elected in 2015, I have taken it upon myself to learn French as well as possible, but more importantly, both of my daughters are in French immersion.

French is very important to me and my family. My daughters are studying the language so that they can speak it proficiently.

Speaking French is quite difficult for me.

I hope it will be easy for my daughters to learn French and be fully bilingual. I will be very proud at that moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion, a dated contract signed well over 100 years ago, is before us today because the Saskatchewan legislature has brought it to our attention. The Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion unanimously, and now it requires passage in the House of Commons and the Senate. We have had the opportunity to have this discussion, and the right thing to do is support this motion in order to make a change that is probably long overdue. We are talking 100 years or so.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for all the work he does in the House.

This is the right thing to do. Canadians sent us here to work collaboratively with all members of this House to get things done. This is, yes, long overdue. It will provide for a fairer taxation system for the Province of Saskatchewan and for the residents of Saskatchewan, and we will work with the Province of Saskatchewan to get this completed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle and I have worked together on a couple of committees, and I appreciate that he has voiced his support for this motion.

I wonder if there are things that we can work together on. He just talked about taxation. The Saskatchewan government has put forward its own carbon pricing system, but it was denied outright. I was wondering if we could work together on this with a sense of decorum and friendship as well, and move it forward. I am sure the Saskatchewan government would like to hear if it could work with the Liberal government on its new environmental plan as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Environment and Minister of Finance, and our bar is very high on reducing greenhouse gases across Canada and transitioning to a low-carbon economy. If the Province of Saskatchewan meets that bar, then it would implement its own carbon pricing model, but until it does, the federal government's model will be the one in place.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in this debate and to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, who have sent me back to this very special place for the third time now. I am honoured by their confidence.

The transcontinental railroad plays a starring role in the mythology around the formation of Canada. Rarely is the polished history of Confederation complete without some telling of how the ribbons of steel bound us together from sea to shining sea, coming together with the driving of the last spike.

Of course, there is some truth in that. However, the creation of the Canadian Pacific Railway was ultimately a political act to bring provinces into Confederation. It was also a business enterprise in a practically unfettered time that few of us here can possibly imagine. It was part of Canada’s colonial pursuit to populate the Prairies with waves of settlers pledged to the Crown, no matter that thousands of years of indigenous civilization predated them.

Many agreements were made, and no doubt some broken, to make it happen. It is very important today to acknowledge that national unity through CP Rail came at a cost. The land grants to the railway and other corporate interests left out indigenous peoples. Treaties could never compare to the cultural loss of their sacred lands.

There were also those who benefited from this railway. It brought people and manufactured goods in and exports like wheat and potash out. Towns and villages bustled with activity due to branch lines, and grain elevators dotted the landscape. Modern-day Saskatchewan would not exist if not for railroads like the CPR. Our commodity production and supply chains continue to depend on rail service. Saskatchewan is a landlocked province that still feeds the world because of trains.

Hon. members know well the history that has brought us to this debate. It is not always as polished as some want it told, not always as idyllic as the murals in the Centre Block, but it is still important to the people and economies of our nation.

There is another constitutional dynamic to this history, and we are being asked to help the people of Saskatchewan to correct an historical anomaly. In 1880, Canada and the CPR reached an agreement that included a provision known as clause 16, which exempted the CPR from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes forever. Twenty-five years later, that exemption was put into the Saskatchewan Act when the province was admitted into Canada in 1905. In 1966, the Government of Canada reached an agreement with the CPR whereby the CPR would begin paying taxes to bring the transportation legislation up to date.

The problem was that the Constitution was not amended to reflect this, mainly because the Constitution wasn’t patriated until two decades later. The tax exemption was never formally terminated. On November 29, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously adopted a resolution requesting an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act and make it retroactive to 1966. If we all agree and if Canada and Saskatchewan agree on the outcome, and if we have the means to do so, it makes sense that we should seriously consider the opportunity to make the changes requested by our colleagues in Saskatchewan.

A strong relationship exists between Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, a relationship we can see up close with the important work of PrairiesCan, the economic development agency formerly known as Western Economic Diversification. PrairiesCan has been a critical strategic investor in Saskatchewan’s economy, and part of the minister’s mandate is to advance Saskatchewan’s economic interests in Ottawa, the same as for Manitoba and Alberta.

In the last five years, PrairiesCan approved investments of over a quarter of a billion dollars in projects to develop businesses, industries and communities across Saskatchewan. The result has been good jobs that people and their families rely on.

Recent examples that add value in key Saskatchewan sectors include PrairiesCan support of the Global Agri-Food Advancement Partnership in Saskatoon, as well as the Agtech Accelerator established in Regina. Over the last two years, the pandemic created challenges for the prairie economy, but also opportunities to come together and support one another. PrairiesCan has been at the forefront of keeping businesses alive during the pandemic. Over $38 million in support has gone to 300 Saskatchewan companies and organizations from the regional relief and recovery fund. Through budget 2021, this government is continuing to make a difference by investing millions more to help communities across the province recover with new programs such as the Canada community revitalization fund, the tourism relief fund and the jobs and growth fund.

We have started something important by making PrairiesCan a stand-alone economic development agency dedicated to this region, something long advocated for by members of the Liberal caucus. In addition to investing, PrairiesCan is putting a priority on convening and pathfinding for clients and stakeholders, and advocating for prairie economic interests to inform decision-making in Ottawa. The department will soon expand its footprint with new service locations in Regina and Prince Albert.

Saskatchewan relies heavily on trade, and rail transportation continues to play a critical role in the economy. Because we are present on the ground in Saskatchewan, we see that CP Rail can also be a point of pride in our communities. Consider the city of Moose Jaw. It is, and always has been, a rail town. Not only is the CPR vital to Moose Jaw, but the city is vital to CP. Five hundred people work for CP there. Last April, CP named the Moose Jaw terminal as the company’s terminal of the year. It is a prestigious award that recognizes employees' high efficiency and safety standards.

Let me conclude by saying that this is an important issue for the other prairie provinces as well. CP Rail has been, and continues to be, an important partner to provide efficient and reliable transportation of Saskatchewan goods to the market. It is also our duty to thoughtfully consider any historical agreement to ensure that our country’s current values align with our federal and provincial economic interests. Our colleagues in the Saskatchewan legislature argue that now is the time to amend the Saskatchewan Act, and I agree. The amendment is due a thoughtful and considerable debate, as we are doing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has it heard often, especially in the position he had under the previous Parliament when there were no Liberal members of Parliament from two of our prairie provinces. I would ask the same question I asked the previous Liberal member.

Canada is divided: I hear it each and every day. Many of my constituents have reached out and suggested that Canada is simply not worth fighting for anymore. That is heartbreaking. As a proud Canadian, it is absolutely heartbreaking that this would be the attitude of many Canadians.

My question is very simple. Will the member, in the spirit of collaboration that we found with this initiative, work with the opposition and other prairie members of Parliament to try to bridge some of the divides that are taking place across our country?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I appreciate the question especially in light of the private member's bill I just introduced in the House, which would actually mandate and encourage co-operation among all levels of government, indigenous communities, the private sector and its employees. During this pandemic, we learned, among many other things, that Canadians expect governments to be aligned and to work together toward a much better conclusion than partisanship and bitterness lead to.

Yes, I am with the spirit of the hon. member's question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try again to get an answer to my question.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion. In our view, it is reasonable to correct the anachronism. However, if a western province can enshrine something in the Constitution, Québec should be able to do so as well. That seems logical to me.

Earlier, I asked one of my colleagues whether he agreed with what we voted on in the previous Parliament, specifically that Québec wants to enshrine, in its part of the Constitution, the fact that it is a francophone society with a single common language, French.

Logically, my colleague should agree with that. Does he?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the beauties of Canadian federalism is its flexibility. In a nation as diverse in its geography as its linguistic makeup, we all know how important the French language is, not only in Quebec but all over the country. Some of my children have graduated from French immersion, which has really enriched their lives. The key answer to the member's question is the flexibility of our federalism, which is proved all the time.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre spoke about the role that Canadian Pacific plays in some Prairie communities with some admiration. At the same time, this company has been in court for 13 years arguing that it should not have to pay taxes, and in fact that it should get the taxes that it has already paid back from the people of Saskatchewan.

Could the member help me square these two facts?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that matters most is that the government is committed to fair taxation.

We also understand that there are many transportation issues that face prairie Canada, including Saskatchewan. If we look at air service, train service and bus service, especially in smaller communities, we know there is an awful lot of work to be done, and it must be done because transportation is an essential element of how we keep the country together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love talking about taxation and the fairness of taxation, especially in the transportation sector.

One thing we have heard from Saskatchewan residents is that the Saskatchewan government has put forward an environmental plan very similar to that of the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It was dismissed outright by the current government. I know the member was the former envoy to the Prairies for the Prime Minister.

I am wondering this. Could the member talk about some more things we could work together on, such as the environmental plan Saskatchewan delivered? Hopefully he could speak to the Prime Minister about accepting that plan from the Saskatchewan government.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that the governments of Saskatchewan and Canada can work together on using the federalism that we know, and maybe even being creative about the federalism we aspire to move into for our children and beyond. That is a spirit and a commitment to collaboration to align the priorities of our governments, and that would include four or five areas where we would immediately agree there has to be more collaboration than there has been in the past. I am committed to that, and I look forward to working with the hon. member.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I am splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

We know that the strength and unity of our Canadian federation is at the heart of today’s debate. Anybody who has been following the debate knows that has been the common thread. Our collective pursuit of fair treatment for every and any Canadian province will only serve to strengthen our Canadian federation. In matters of taxation and in all matters of its own governance, the Province of Saskatchewan should be entitled to the same authority as other provinces in this country.

From following the debate today, we know that the Canadian Pacific Railway’s position is that it is exempt from certain provincial taxes in Saskatchewan, based on an agreement struck in 1880 and included in the Saskatchewan Act. It will ultimately be decided by the courts. However, the House has the opportunity, and I believe an obligation, to support the Province of Saskatchewan in its effort to achieve a permanent resolution to this matter.

The Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously passed a motion to address this inequity. Saskatchewan has moved to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, which contains this exemption. The province has made a clear ask to the federal government and to the members of the House: We have been asked to pass the necessary motion and to do so as quickly as possible. The member for Regina—Lewvan presented the House with the opportunity to do just that this past December.

That motion presented the House with the chance to swiftly show unanimous support for the Province of Saskatchewan’s resolution. It would have offered tax fairness to my province of Saskatchewan. The unanimous adoption of that motion would also have affirmed the principle that Canadian provinces can amend sections of the Constitution that deal exclusively with their own internal governance.

That is a principle that my Conservative colleagues and I believe to be fundamental to unity and to the functioning of our freedom. Not surprisingly, it was very disheartening that the Liberal government blocked that motion. As we revisit this matter today, I implore my colleagues in this chamber to respect the will of the Province of Saskatchewan. The case to repeal section 24 is straightforward and, I would say arguably, obvious. It is outlined quite clearly in the motion itself.

First, it is simply unfair that Saskatchewan is unable to impose taxes on a company operating in its province, while other provinces have the authority to impose similar taxes on that same company. The date that Saskatchewan entered our Canadian federation should not limit its ability to levy provincial taxes. Provinces in our federation must have the same jurisdictional authorities.

If members of the House truly view Saskatchewan as an equal partner in our Confederation, there really is no room to question the removal of section 24. This section limits the jurisdictional authority of our province in a manner that is not applied to other provinces. The Province of Saskatchewan has clearly expressed its opposition to it. On that alone, I would suggest that the motion being debated today should have the support of every member of the House.

Above and beyond that point, there is also the issue of tax fairness within the province. If CP, a large, profitable, national company, is not required to pay taxes in Saskatchewan, it places a greater tax burden on others. Businesses operating in our province, and the hard-working people of Saskatchewan, are paying their fair share, so why should CP not pay its own fair share?

Saskatchewanians should not be responsible for paying a single cent of tax revenue owed to the province by a profitable corporation. This exemption also places CP at a competitive advantage within the province. By upholding section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, other transportation companies operating in the province of Saskatchewan are placed at a competitive disadvantage, as they are not afforded the same exemptions.

With respect to the rationale of a provincial tax exemption to this railway company, the justifications for a tax exemption that existed long ago no longer apply today. As highlighted in the motion we are debating, it is important to note the Canadian Pacific Railway company agreed to relinquish this tax exemption in 1966 in exchange for federal regulatory changes. These regulatory changes benefited the company and were made by the government of the day.

As I have said before, I believe the case to support this motion is straightforward. I also want to add that in the current political climate, it is an important marker to demonstrate to the people of Saskatchewan that they are an equal partner in our federation.

Recent years have been particularly difficult for my province of Saskatchewan, as our people and our economy have repeatedly suffered at the hands of the Liberal government’s political agenda. Certainly, I know Saskatchewan is not alone in that respect. The reality is that since coming to power, the Liberal government’s agenda has largely failed to respect the interests of Saskatchewanians. The Liberal government has, on a number of occasions, failed to truly work in partnership with the province.

The Liberal carbon tax that continues to be imposed on our province is a prime example. The carbon tax unfairly punishes rural communities like the ones I represent. It is why my province, as we heard throughout the debate, presented a made-in-Saskatchewan plan to protect the environment that recognized the unique regional realities of our great province of Saskatchewan. The Liberal government rejected it and went so far as to reject a second plan proposed by our province that was modelled on another province’s existing policy.

These actions speak volumes to the people of Saskatchewan, just as the Liberal government’s repeated attacks on our Canadian energy sector do. It is a main economic driver in our province and in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster, and the government’s policies that favour international foreign imports of energy over our own Canadian energy are, to put it politely, quite insulting. Whether it is the costly carbon tax, inaction or a failure to stand up to trading partners, our agricultural sector, which is another main economic driver in our province, has also suffered tremendously at the hands of the government. We would be hard pressed to find any Saskatchewanians whose lives and livelihoods have not been negatively impacted either directly or indirectly by these Liberal policies.

The Liberal government has caused division and stoked the flames of separatist sentiment. The growing disunity is a cause for serious concern. We only have to take a few steps outside of the House of Commons to get a sense of the growing fractures in this country. We cannot ignore the fact that this is the context in which we are having this debate today.

Fortunately, the motion before us is in the opposite spirit. The passage of this motion will serve to strengthen our Canadian federation. It is incumbent on any federal government to seek to unify our great country, and our federation will undoubtedly be strengthened by this motion, as it would affirm Parliament’s respect for provincial jurisdiction. Every province should have the ability to unilaterally amend the section of the Canadian Constitution that deals solely with its own internal governance. By respecting the will of the Province of Saskatchewan in this matter, the passage of this motion would recognize Saskatchewan as a true equal partner in our federation.

Whether it is British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador or any province in between, every province should be afforded the same jurisdictional authorities. In this outdated taxation matter, this motion would do just that for the province of Saskatchewan. It would also ensure that a profitable, national company like Canadian Pacific Railway pays its fair share instead of creating a greater burden on the backs of hard-working Canadians living in Saskatchewan.

Repealing section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, and by helping to unify and strengthen our country, it is also in the interests of all Canadians. I fully support the motion before the House that respects the will of the Province of Saskatchewan, and I implore every member of the House to do the same.