44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2023 02:00PM
- Feb/1/23 2:06:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Emma Hill, a student at Shawnigan Lake School, in British Columbia, who proudly represented Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia during a parliamentary simulation. Emma contacted me to learn more about my region and the values of the Bloc Québécois. She proudly told me that the MPs had introduced and passed a bill to abolish the monarchy. Yes, Quebec values and the desire to break free from a foreign monarch have made their way to western Canada. Still, the highlight of that simulation was undoubtedly the election of a Bloc Québécois prime minister. Imagine the Bloc Québécois leading a Canadian government; I am not making this up, but it certainly brings a smile to my face. It shows that the idea of deciding one's own fate and honouring one's identity transcends the borders of our beautiful Quebec. I thank Emma and her classmates for representing our political party so well. Their intelligence, ambition, openness to the world and thirst for independence are inspiring. I congratulate them and I thank them.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 2:29:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in light of recent events and the tensions surrounding the arrival of the representative chosen by the Prime Minister, whom I met today at noon, in light of past and perhaps regrettable comments—it is not for me to judge—and in light of the polarizing effect this is having on Quebec and Canada, if the Prime Minister's objective is mutual understanding between communities, will he recognize that he went about it the wrong way?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 2:42:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since it is a question of building bridges, since some of his MPs are going to the front lines in Quebec to defend the most indefensible decisions, and since some MPs, specifically the member for Honoré-Mercier and the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, have expressed concerns, I would like to know what the Prime Minister said to his members from Quebec, other than that he supported his own appointee nothing short of 100%.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 2:42:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada's Quebec caucus, and I can say that we are here to have difficult conversations with one another, with our colleagues and with Canadians. I know that the issue of Islamophobia is a sensitive topic all across the country. It exists everywhere, not just in Quebec. That is why we are here to dialogue with our colleagues, to talk about how we can create more harmony across the country and continue to be there for each other. I was very proud to be in Sainte‑Foy on Sunday night, and we will continue to be there for the Muslim community.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 4:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.
Although I have a completely different point of view, there is one thing we agree on, and I would like to ask her a question. I, too, am a member of the committee that did an in-depth study of Bill C‑22.
What seems to be unique about this bill is that the amount of the benefit and the eligibility criteria will be established by regulations, without any parliamentary oversight on what the benefit level will be. Will this amount truly complement what is being provided in Quebec and the provinces? Will it meet its objective of reducing poverty? We moved an amendment in that regard in committee proposing that the eligibility criteria and the amount of the benefit be studied in Parliament and a decision be made. The amendment was not successful.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that? Would it have been a good idea?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the invaluable and important work of my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville. She cares a lot about the future of the people of Quebec and the entire community. She has done a tremendous amount of work on this committee. I think that all of our colleagues here and in committee have seen how competent she is. She has a lot of experience and has contributed a great deal to this committee, particularly during the study of Bill C‑22. I want to sincerely thank her for that.
The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑22, but we are not very optimistic about it, and understandably so. The bill is still a blank page that gives the Governor in Council the power to adopt any new regulations they deem proper. None of the amendments that were made change the fact that the benefit will be established solely by regulation. That is what we take issue with. Parliamentarians will have little or no control over the final product, despite the testimony, the opinions of advocacy groups and the time spent in committee. We are basically at square one. Of course, everyone agrees that we need to move as quickly as possible. However, it is not a good idea to move quickly just for the sake of doing so. We need to move quickly but still do things right.
We are once again seeing a great partnership between the NDP and the Liberals. That warms the heart, but it leaves us with mixed feelings about this approach, which is hasty and devoid of content.
Quebec having created its own social safety net that is the envy of many nations, it goes without saying that we support any effort to improve the lives of people with disabilities. However, it should be noted that the bill is still very short on details and could very likely be an intrusion into Quebec's jurisdiction. Our desire to support persons with disabilities is what drives us to support the bill in principle, but we are left with many concerns.
Our hopes fade, however, when we see the legal void in the legislation. There are many requirements that need to be met, especially in Quebec. Many people do not identify as having a disability and do not claim the help provided to persons with disabilities. There are many reasons for that.
Some people go through life without ever having any health problems and then suddenly end up sick overnight. They do not know where to turn to get help or do not want any help. Some people do not know that their condition is recognized as a disability. Others find the process too complicated.
Tax credits are non-refundable and some people do not even have enough income to claim them. Then we have the terms “handicap”, or disability, and “invalidity”, which do not mean exactly the same thing. Among francophones, there is confusion about what constitutes a disability. People are confused.
In a single year, 193,000 people in Quebec received the disability tax credit compared to 1,380,000 in all of Canada. These figures may seem high, but the reality is that only 60% of Canadians claim this credit. In Quebec, only 2.2% of the population claim it, even though 16% of Quebeckers live with a disability and are eligible. The confusion is detrimental for Quebeckers.
The federal government plans to conduct consultations over three years to establish the terms and conditions for the benefits. For individuals living with a disability, the needs are immediate and such lengthy consultations are not necessary. What are they going to do during the three years that discussions are being held?
I would like to talk about my friend Daniel. Daniel has been disabled most of his life. An artist at heart, Daniel left his hometown of Sept-Îles for Montreal before the summer of 1994. He studied to be a drama teacher at UQAM and did theatre studies at the Conservatoire Lassalle.
Daniel had plans.
In the summer of 1994, Daniel was in his early twenties when a tragic dive left him quadriplegic and put him in a wheelchair. It took a year of rehabilitation in Quebec City. He was not eligible for a disability pension because in the months before his accident he was a part-time student and worked part-time in a health care centre. Since he was partially self-employed, he had not contributed enough to qualify for a pension. As a result, he had to rely on social assistance for two years while he completed his rehabilitation.
Does everyone see how complex this can be? When someone is going through the worst experience of their life, these torments should not exist.
He then returned to Sept-Îles to regain some autonomy and return to his theatre projects. This was followed by years of volunteer work and involvement in schools in several regions, from Quebec City to Natashquan. He set up coaching workshops as a self-employed worker. He shares his skills with many artists in Quebec, including Simon Gauthier and Les contes de Petite souris. He founded the resto-bar Le Crapet-Soleil with his fabulous wife, Carol-Anne Pedneault. Over eight years, they presented more than 300 performances, including live music, theatre productions, improvisation and cultural events. He has an instinct for discovering emerging talent. Many such artists are now very successful because they first appeared on our friend Daniel's stage.
I would like to point out that he was the brilliant director of a musical called La vie du Temps, of which I was the humble author. Thanks to his talent, skills and dedication, it has charmed the likes of Jean Besré, Gilles Pelletier, Paul Buissonneau, Louisette Dussault, Johanne Fontaine and numerous others who have praised his exceptional work. I say this because Daniel did this while in a wheelchair and with no income.
Despite three bouts of cancer and a stem cell transplant, Daniel always wanted to be independent, to work to support his family. In 2008, he founded Noé productions, gave lectures and published a first book.
These new creative realms led him to a year-long tour of western Canada, where he offered theatre workshops in French-immersion schools. With the success of his performances, he used his time out west to direct Saint-Exupéry's Le Petit Prince, touring major cities in British Columbia.
Now more than ever, his health is a major issue and his survival a priority. He was richly rewarded. He and his partner brought a beautiful daughter into the world. Her name is Mika, and she is now 15 years old. She is living proof that Daniel's disability did not put an end to his ability, his plans and his dream of having a family. Two years ago, he applied for a disability pension and, for the first time since his two years of rehab, he began to collect an income. That whole time, he got by without government help.
I wanted to share this because people with disabilities, whatever their disability, just want one thing. They want to live as authentically as possible in this world.
For people who lose their autonomy, a normal life is crucial. Daniel just made it through several weeks in intensive care, once again defying the gloomiest prognosis. He battled double pneumonia and resulting complications and prevailed. He dreams of wandering through the island forest and hopes to complete his writing projects, including a history of St. Lawrence schooners, an autobiographical novel, and a children's series illustrated by his partner, Carol-Anne, also known as Carococo.
Even with his disability, in his working life, Daniel was able to achieve what many able-bodied people have not. Without specific, adapted support, he was unable to benefit from the financial support that would likely have taken his career even further. Let us give everyone the chance to shine no matter what their circumstances.
Bill C‑22 does not really do anything tangible for people with disabilities. The Bloc Québécois thinks that is unfortunate and will continue to ensure, thanks to my colleague, that things are the best they can be given the circumstances.
1406 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-239, An Act to amend An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about the single tax return. I will talk about it more later. Quebeckers have been wanting this for a long time. The House needs to understand why they want a single tax return. The reason is that they have to file two tax returns: the federal return and the Quebec tax return. Why is that?
Let us go back to the beginning. To understand why someone is suffering or to understand a problem, we must learn about the history of the problem. The problem actually began in 1867 when Canada was created. Many believe that it was created by people from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, who were all united in saying that they wanted a country that would be called “Canada” and who were determined to come together. That kind of thing only happens in fairy tales. In reality, it did not happen that way at all.
It is very simple. In 1854, Canada signed a reciprocity treaty with the Americans. Why? Because Canada used to sell goods to its mother country, Great Britain, which later turned to Europe instead. The British said they would not buy anything from Canada anymore; they were turning to Europe and they would do free trade. What happened was that the rich folks in Canada had nowhere to sell their products. They thought it might be nice to sell to the United States, so they signed this reciprocity agreement with the Americans in 1854.
After that, we began trading with the United States. We created trains to sell Canadian products to the United States. Unfortunately, the Americans decided they were going to kill each other with the Civil War. Since the English had an affinity with the south, they allied themselves with the southerners. The northerners won. The northerners wondered who these disgusting people were who had supported the south. It was the mother country, Great Britain, so they decided to take it out on her babies. They turned on us and said they no longer wanted anything to do with us.
We wondered what we would do if we could no longer sell to the Americans. That is when a few visionaries, the fathers of Confederation, quickly met together. We are not talking about a huge group of people coming together in song. No. They were wondering what they should do, because they could no longer sell their products. That is when Canada was created. There was no singing, no music, no speeches. It was just the fathers of Confederation meeting together for the first time in Charlottetown talking amongst themselves. They were plotting. In the end, they created Canada. People were wondering what that was. One Quebec humorist always said that Canada was doomed to failure because a bunch of fathers giving birth to something was never going to work.
In 1867, the fathers of Confederation felt it was absolutely necessary for the federal government to be very strong, so there would be a very united market. The provinces' powers needed to be limited, to prevent a civil war from breaking out like in the United States. The fathers of Confederation decided to make the provinces insignificant. The provinces would be given some taxing rights and a few responsibilities. The fathers of Confederation thought they were great visionaries. A blind mole has more vision.
Later on, they decided to give Quebec and the provinces a little bit of power, in other words the right to manage education and health, things they felt were insignificant. At the time, those things were the responsibility of the clergy. One hundred years later, we see that they were way out in left field. They also decided to give the provinces income tax, because they did not know what it was and thought it likely would not matter much. That was a serious mistake.
That is where my story begins, when they gave income tax to Quebec and the provinces. The first province to realize that there was something to this was British Columbia. It got to work and started to collect money in 1873.
Then came the First World War. The federal government figured it would be a good idea to tax income to pay for that war. That was in 1917. The federal government realized it could bring in a lot of cash that way. The tax was not supposed to outlast the war, but the government decided to keep it to pay off the debt. After 1929, the government said it would keep it because the dirty thirties were trying times. It spread its tentacles and made itself right at home.
Then came the Second World War. Subtle as a brick through a window, the government decided to maintain the status quo. After the war, they figured everything was fine, so why change it ever?
The federal government talked about benefits, and all the provinces except Ontario and Quebec reached an agreement in 1947. The government did it again in 1952. It told the provinces that was that and it was taking over that tax field going forward. Everyone got on board, except Quebec. Quebec always marched to the beat of its own drum, which is to be expected considering we are a nation and a people.
Quebec struck the Tremblay commission to figure out what to do about it. Before long, a consensus was reached, as articulated by Duplessis. In 1954, Quebec told Canada to make room in that tax field because it wanted its share too. The public service needed big changes, and Quebec needed money. That is why we have to submit two tax returns.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing that there be only one tax return. In Canada, there would still be two tax policies. The federal government and the Quebec government would each have their own tax policy. However, there would be only one tax collector, and that is Quebec. It will collect all the income taxes. At the end of the year, the government that collects the tax will write a cheque to the other government and give it the money it is owed under its tax policy. The government that is not responsible for collecting the money will pay for services rendered.
This model already exists. Some say that it does not make sense, but they just need a little more vision. This model is already being used for the GST and the QST, and no one has died so far. It has not been a huge pain, and no one is going around saying that it is so awful they will die. This model exists. Quebec collects the GST for the federal government. There is only one tax collector. The federal government tells Quebec to go and get the money in a certain way and sends a cheque at the end of the year. It sends $145 million to Quebec as thanks, so that Quebec can pay its officials. That is how it works.
The tax collector should be Quebec, because Revenu Québec asks for a lot more information. The Quebec government's policies and interventions are more numerous and more complex. Quebec needs more information because it manages child care, schools, health care and so on. It needs this information so it knows where to provide these services. Tax data allows the government to do that. For instance, it uses the data to determine support payments for separated couples. The Quebec government can then deduct the amounts at source and give them to the spouse who is entitled to them.
Plus, if Quebec continues doing the collecting, it will not lose a jurisdiction that is required for collection. It keeps its jurisdictions. If Ottawa stops acting as the collector in Quebec, but continues collecting in the other provinces, there is no problem, it will keep those jurisdictions.
In addition, Quebeckers want the Quebec government to be in charge of collecting this money. Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a motion to that effect on May 15, 2018. Even the staunch federalist Philippe Couillard was there and voted for it. I was the one who tabled the motion. I remember, I was there. I could see Philippe Couillard, staunch federalist that he is, smiling. He knew what he was doing and he thought it was a good idea. In addition, the motion stated that Quebec would collect the taxes.
Why do that? It saves time and money. According to economist François Vaillancourt, it takes Quebeckers 10% longer to file their tax return than if they only had to file one. This is scientifically proven with econometric models. We are not talking 50% longer, just 10%. With technology, it is 10%. That amounts to $39 million a year for Quebeckers who have someone else file their tax return.
That would represent $99 million in savings for entrepreneurs. In addition, entrepreneurs should have less paperwork and we should help them. ensuring that they only have to file one return is one way to help them. It would be much simpler and would represent $99 million in savings.
No one needs a PhD in mathematics to understand that when the federal government and Quebec each have their own returns, two people are doing the same job. Can we afford to have two people doing the same job? That could mean $287 million per year in savings that would be shared by the federal government and Quebec. It would benefit everyone. We must understand that it would be beneficial for everyone, and I am not just talking about the time we could save.
What are the counter-arguments? First, jobs. Two people are doing the same job, and we have to wonder why that work cannot be done by a single person. Seems sensible to me. People will lose their jobs, they say. Yes, but here is the thing. Quebec will hire some of them because there will be more work to do and it will need more people, so some of them will go work in Quebec, and it will be easy enough to give them the same working conditions they had in the federal public service.
Keep in mind that we are in the third decade of the 21st century, and we are not seeing the 13% and 15% unemployment rates we used to see.
Mr. Speaker, you are young, but I am sure you have heard about high unemployment in the 1980s. Those days are done. The problem now is a labour shortage.
The government keeps going on about how the passport situation is tough because there are not enough workers.
People who contact the Canada Revenue Agency are not getting any service. We are told that it is because of the labour shortage. People who need EI are not getting the services they need. We are told that it is because of the labour shortage. The immigration department is assigning files to people who do not even work there anymore. Once again, it is because of the labour shortage.
What I am saying is that there is a pool of extremely competent workers in the government who can stay at the Canada Revenue Agency, which will need more people. They could also work on tax evasion files, or they could go and work elsewhere in the public service. Plus, if this is done gradually, they can all transition to retirement and their positions can be eliminated through attrition.
Some people will argue that the feds share information with other countries. When tax returns are filed, we have to talk with other countries to avoid doubling up on accounting and taxation. If Quebec were collecting taxes, those agreements would no longer be valid.
However, we could tell the United States that the federal government used to provide this service, but that Quebec is now doing it and that the agreement is off. When the United States finds out that Quebec is a free trade zone now, that people are leaving the U.S. to work in Quebec and that it will not have any information anymore, it will get in touch with the Quebec government. That is how it will work itself out.
The last criticism of this idea is not complicated. Some say that the federal government would lose out on information that is important for keeping its public service running and for making informed decisions. That is not true, because the Quebec government collects more information than the federal government. The Quebec government could simply transmit any information requested by the federal government. The opposite cannot happen, because the Quebec government has a much larger database. This is why a single tax return is needed. It is as simple as that.
In 2019, Quebeckers were surveyed on whether they were in favour of a single tax return with Quebec as the tax collector. Fully 65% of respondents said yes, 22% said no, and 12% were not sure.
The National Assembly of Quebec is on our side, Quebec is on our side and common sense is on our side. It is time to join the 21st century, figure out a smart way to deal with the labour shortage and pass this bill.
2266 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member would likely find individuals in every provincial or territorial jurisdiction who would make similar arguments. Many of them might actually be separatists in their own jurisdiction.
The issue I have is this. Canada is a nation with 10 provinces and three territories. Would the Bloc be advocating that Canada should just dismantle CRA and have all provinces operate on their own? It seems to me that the Bloc has an approach to take anything that would minimize the federal government's role, in essence, any resources we get, just to be that ATM. Things like OAS and many other programs that the federal government provides, I think, are really important.
Would he not agree that, for example, if one is a senior in Quebec or a senior in B.C., Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, one should be entitled to the OAS? The federal government is, indeed, in a good position to administer many programs.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions.
First, there is a reality in Quebec that does not exist in the other provinces. Quebec is the only place in Canada where people have to complete two tax returns. We are not proposing that the CRA be dismantled. It will still exist in Quebec, but it would simply no longer collect any personal or business income tax. That is all. It would still have other things to do.
That being said, we are the only ones who have to complete two tax returns. My colleague is talking about situations in Canada where there is only one tax return. I think that is great. That is what I want.
As for the rest, I honestly did not really understand what he was getting at.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his persistence on this one issue, which keeps coming up.
I would note that, in 2021, he told the Standing Committee on Finance that 2,332 of the Canada Revenue Agency's 5,300 employees in Quebec would remain employed. That means 3,000 people would lose their jobs.
The NDP cares deeply about what happens to workers, especially unionized workers. My colleague mentioned the labour shortage and the unemployment rate. That is true in general in society, but what about the federal public service?
In 2015, there were 260,000 federal public servants. In 2020, there were 300,000, and, in 2022, there were 335,000. That means 35,000 people were hired in the space of two years. The NDP is happy about that because we want good public services and we want them to get even better. However, given that the government just hired 35,000 people in the past two years, where is it going to put those 3,000 people?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑239, which deals with a promise that the Conservative Party itself proposed in the summer of 2018.
We also moved a motion on February 5, 2019, here in the House, on this clear and legitimate request from Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly, specifically to cut the paperwork burden on Quebeckers significantly by allowing them to file a single tax return.
On April 24, 2021, all of my Conservative Party colleagues voted for this measure in Bill C‑224. The single income tax return responds to a request that is dear to the hearts of the people of Lévis—Lotbinière and all Quebeckers. All Quebeckers are required to file two tax returns as soon as they start earning an income, even if they have not reached the age of majority. This noble and legitimate request will save a lot of time and money for Quebec families and all Quebeckers. It is important to note that Quebec is the only province in Canada that still has to take on this onerous task.
Whether it relates to this bill or any other measure that would be good for the Quebec nation and the entire Canadian population, nothing seems to make the Liberal government lift a finger since it came to power in 2015, because saving time and money is simply not one of its values and is not in its DNA.
Let me give a real-life example of when all my children were still living under the same roof at home. At the time, it meant 14 individual tax returns for one house, plus two returns for my small farm. Think about it, that is 16 tax returns under one roof. That is a lot of repetitive and counterproductive work forced on families, students and young workers, who are eager to be active in the workforce, which is in need of labour now more than ever.
True to their values, Conservatives have always been committed to simplifying the lives of Quebeckers, saving them time and money, and increasing their quality of life.
We cannot shy away from certain words. We are living under a coalition government, and this cronyism between the Liberals and the NDP is disastrous for all Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. This arrangement is damaging our democracy and prevents any good measures from being adopted. We saw proof of this when the NDP and the Liberals voted against Bill C‑224, sealing its fate.
We saw further proof recently with my private member's bill, Bill C‑215, which got a majority but may not be adopted at third reading because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are still refusing to give it a royal recommendation. I would like to remind members that my bill would extend EI benefits for people with serious illness to 52 weeks, a fix for outdated legislation that has not been amended since 1971.
There are a lot of good bills here, including the one before us now, Bill C‑239, which is perfectly valid. However, we have a major problem in the House after eight years of Liberal incompetence that is now making itself felt across Canada and in every sector.
Our Canada is broken. It will never be like it was before. We are experiencing the repercussions of lack of leadership and political will to bring positive, long-lasting change to the lives of people in Canada.
Under the Liberals, life has become very expensive. Inflation, taxes, crime and drug deaths are on the rise. Honest citizens like hunters and farmers are being attacked and penalized by Bill C‑21. We have a Liberal government that will do anything to help its cronies get funding and contracts in exchange for a $500 ticket to a dinner. The Liberals managed to legalize marijuana and now want to decriminalize hard drugs. However, when it comes to helping honest people who work hard, day in and day out, people who are responsible, or people who are seriously ill and simply deserve our support, there is no danger of Liberal favouritism. There is no danger of giving these honest people a free ride. We hear more than a simple “no”. It is a resounding “no” to anyone with common sense and logic, and this is all currently endorsed by the NDP.
This government is really old, worn out and outdated, not to mention fundamentally incompetent.
I remember all too well the Liberal argument against adopting a single tax return in Quebec. I can already see the return of the stale rhetoric of the Minister of National Revenue—we just heard it. The House has already heard responses using the simplistic argument that having a single tax return would result in massive job losses, which is unfounded and, moreover, would happen at a time when there is a dire need for labour across Canada.
I would also like to remind the minister and my colleagues that the number of public service jobs has increased by 32% from 2015. My constituents write to me to tell me that they can no longer make ends meet, have no savings, are using food banks to feed themselves and their family, can no longer afford their rent, have to work when sick or, even worse, have to declare bankruptcy. Like them, I am very worried about our future and that of our children and future generations.
The aspirations of Quebeckers are eroding after eight years of Liberal incompetence. The single tax return that has been a Conservative election promise since 2018 will still not see the light of day, I am afraid. The NDP has to go back to being an opposition party and stop propping up the Liberal government. We all know that the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs are not the ones who can make the change that Canada really needs.
I am proud that the people in my riding, Lévis—Lotbinière, trust me and the leadership of the Conservative Party to put an end to the Liberal incompetence that we have seen for eight years now—eight years too many. The Conservatives are the best equipped to work for a more productive Quebec, a stronger Quebec, a richer Quebec, a Quebec that is a partner in Canada's success, a Quebec that is proud of its culture and heritage, a Quebec that is worthy of the French language, a Quebec that is respected by the Conservative Party of Canada for what it has achieved. The Conservative Party is a proud partner in the success of all Canadians from all provinces.
Historically, the Conservatives have said yes to Quebec's requests. We said yes to the construction of the new Champlain Bridge, yes to the future third link in Quebec City, yes to more power over immigration for Quebec and yes to a single tax return. That is more than a promise of change or lip service. It is a real commitment, a promise that I have been keeping every day in the House for 17 years now, along with my Conservative colleagues. I say yes for Lévis—Lotbinière and yes for Quebec.
1240 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have my trinket with me. I hope I do not show it off too much tonight.
I would like to go back to Groundhog Day. I loved that movie. In fact, I feel like I just relived Groundhog Day while listening to my NDP colleague speak.
I am the member for Jonquière, and the tax centre at issue is in my riding. I remember how in 2019, the former member for Jonquière, an NDP member, said that there would never be a single tax return, so there would not be any job losses. At the same time, however, the leader and deputy leader of the NDP were telling the national media that they respected Quebec and wanted Quebec to have as much autonomy as possible. They wanted the single tax return to go through.
It was Groundhog Day for the NDP as they talked out of both sides of their mouths. They were trying to charm Quebec by acknowledging its political autonomy, but the member for Jonquière was being told to say that it would not happen. They were saying one thing in Jonquière and another in Montreal. That is not Groundhog Day. Back home, we would call that plain old hypocrisy. However, I would not go that far. That was just a friendly update for my friend and colleague from the NDP.
I would like to come back to the member for La Prairie's fantastic introduction, which made me realize something. It often happens that the member for La Prairie makes me see the light about something. In his introduction, he talked about the genesis of the single tax return and, in doing so, he recapped the reasons that led to Confederation. I want to add a layer. The member for La Prairie forgot one small detail.
The reason for the birth of Canada, and what motivated the fathers of Confederation, was the desire to build a railway, of course. They wanted to do business from coast to coast. They had a stake in a railway company and figured that if they wanted to build a railway, why not unite?
Some countries arise as a result of a quest for emancipation. Take, for example, the United States and “We, the people”. The birth of the United States was a quest for emancipation. Other countries were created for business considerations. They said to themselves, why not build a railway?
I think this is quite important. The member for La Prairie told us that, and I think it is important because this is one of the key points about the single income tax return. The only political entity that is still trying to develop through a quest for emancipation is Quebec. There is a link here with the single income tax return.
Listen carefully. I will not shock anyone, but everyone will see the inescapable logic in what I have to say. I often do this with my girlfriend. When she says something to me, I want to know why. I want to know where she is coming from when we have a disagreement. Similarly, I want to find out what is behind the federal government's refusal to relieve taxpayers and business owners from having to file two tax returns.
What is the Liberal government's motivation for not wanting to save $425 million a year?
The answer is quite simple, and the member for La Prairie gave us part of it. It is the fear that the government would be sending a message to Quebec that Quebec is capable of managing itself as a nation. What really scares the Liberal government is the possibility that Quebec might prove that it is capable of managing itself. It is the fear that my nation might take another step towards political autonomy.
It has always been that way. Quebeckers did not want a railway; they wanted political autonomy. The other side is all about business, so our interests are not aligned. We will come back to that later.
The first major stumbling block that prevents us from being on the same page as either my NDP colleagues or members of the Liberal government is not concern about jobs. It is their fear of giving Quebec any kind of political autonomy. Doing so would show that Quebec is capable of governing itself as a nation. That is what worries them.
The Conservatives did things hastily in committee. Fear is also why they abstained from voting in committee. This would give Quebec a degree of autonomy. They can say yes in a roundabout way and then change their tune when it is time to take action. That is what we are seeing with the new Conservative leader, who now has no choice but to say he will not support Bills 21 and 96.
If we look carefully at the situation, we see that all of the parties in Ottawa have a centralizing vision, and that no party truly wants to recognize Quebec, which has unique characteristics and makes different choices. They do not want Quebec to have a single tax return.
That brings us to the strategy that the NDP and the Liberal Party use when it comes to self-government. It makes me think of Robert Charlebois's 1969 Paris tour entitled À soir on fait peur au monde, or tonight we scare people. I encourage everyone to listen to it. This strategy works all the time. I remember how Jean Chrétien said that if Quebec decided to separate, it would definitely not be able to get any more oranges. Florida would not sell oranges to Quebec because it only sold them to Canada.
The same thing is happening here. This evening, we are talking about a single tax return and they are fearmongering. If Quebec gets a single tax return, then jobs will be lost. That is the argument that I hear every time we talk about a single tax return. However, that did not stop us.
I—along with the member for Joliette, who introduced the bill in the previous Parliament, and my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—looked into this situation, and we went to meet with workers at the tax centre in my riding of Jonquière. Not only did we go to meet them, but we also commissioned a study to get an overview of federal public service employment in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. In looking at the results, it is clear that the government's motivation for maintaining public service jobs makes the government look bad.
The first observation is that Quebec pays approximately 20% of the CRA's budget but has only 12% of the jobs. That alone is blatantly unfair. Quebec has only 11% of the full-time jobs and only 12% of CRA jobs. Again, that is blatantly unfair.
The study we commissioned shows that there was serious job growth tied to the federal public service in the 2000s. In Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, we are short 1,100 federal public service jobs to be in the Canadian average. We are already below acceptable levels, so trying to scare people by saying that they will lose their public service jobs is just stupid.
A constituent who was hired by CRA during the pandemic approached me recently. She is happy to work for CRA, but she told me that she was told when she was hired that her position would become bilingual. Since she is not bilingual, but a francophone, her contract will end.
This person who processes CRA files will not get a permanent position because she is francophone. The federal public service is currently falling apart. We experience that as MPs every day. Whether we are talking about employment insurance, immigration or any other service the government offers, there is a severe shortage of workers. Then they take a francophone and tell her that because she is not bilingual she will not be able to keep her job.
If I were a Liberal member, I would be a lot more outraged about that than about the idea that a single tax return could result in job losses. We all know that, through attrition or by reassigning these people elsewhere in the public service, it is possible to make sure they keep their jobs.
The truth is that the government is deathly afraid of Quebec gaining greater autonomy.
1420 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the line of what the member said was the truth. We heard a sense of the truth from the member when he indicated that really what this is about is separating from Canada. That is what seems to be the primary motivation for Bloc members in making their presentation, if we listened to what the member was suggesting. I would like to hear the logistical arguments on why it would be in Canada's best interest as a nation to do what the Bloc is proposing without a separatist bias.
Every province and territory has separatists who live in them. However, if we listened to what the member was articulating, it was not about the logic behind the bill. Are we to say that every separatist in every province is saying they should have their own taxation, or that they should forget about OAS and they want their own OAS program? I suspect the separatists inside this chamber would say they do not want a national OAS program.
I beg to differ. I would suggest that with the OAS supplements, GIS and many other programs that are out there, all Canadians in every region of our country benefit from them. The Bloc has failed to demonstrate why it is in Canada's best interest, including the province of Quebec, and why there is an argument to be made for a single system that is solely based on the province of Quebec versus Canada.
I believe the Liberal caucus is open to the arguments, but not with the bias that I heard demonstrated by the former speaker who last addressed the chamber. I believe in the distinct nature and uniqueness of the province of Quebec, and I think there is a great deal of sympathy in terms of how we can recognize that in many different forms. However, in no way was that demonstrated in the debate on the introduction of the bill, particularly by the Bloc member who spoke previously.
I suggest that the bill, before going to committee, needs to be looked at again. At the end of the day, I am somewhat concerned about how the Conservative Party is placing itself on this legislation. I hope it is not an appeal to garner support from the Bloc side.
I think we need to take a look at Canada and the services it provides. If there are better ways we can provide those services, then we should look at those. However, it does not mean that we start taking apart Canada, whether it is separatists in one province or another, which is their ultimate goal and the purpose of the legislation as it was implied in the previous speaker's comments.
458 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
