Bill C-224 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces to provide that the Minister of Finance may enter into an agreement with the government of a province under which the government of the province will collect the federal personal and corporation income taxes on behalf of the Government of Canada. It also requires that the Minister of Finance undertake discussions with the Government of Quebec in order to enter into such an agreement.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-224, 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-224. Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-224 be amended by restoring the long title as follows:

“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”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-224 be amended by restoring the preamble as follows:

“Whereas the residents of Quebec are the only ones in Canada who have to submit both a federal tax return and a provincial tax return;

And whereas the National Assembly and Government of Quebec have expressed their desire to put an end to this situation by entering into an agreement with the Government of Canada to allow residents of Quebec to submit a single tax return and to make the Government of Quebec responsible for collecting the taxes;”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-224 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows:

“1 An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces is amended by adding the following after section 20:

20.1 (1) The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may, on behalf of the Government of Canada, enter into an agreement with the government of a province under which the government of the province will collect the federal personal and corporation income taxes on behalf of the Government of Canada and will make payments to the Government of Canada in respect of the taxes so collected, in accordance with such terms and conditions as the agreement prescribes.

(2) The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may, on behalf of the Government of Canada, enter into an agreement amending the terms and conditions of an agreement entered into under subsection (1).

(3) Any agreement entered into under subsection (1) must provide measures to mitigate the impacts that the implementation of the agreement may have on the employment of affected persons.

(4) When an agreement is entered into under subsection (1), the Minister shall undertake, on behalf of the Government of Canada, negotiations with the foreign taxing authorities in order to amend the income tax treaties, income tax agreements and tax information exchange agreements that they have entered into with Canada so that the government of the province has access to all the tax information necessary to implement the agreement from those taxing authorities directly.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-224 be amended by restoring Clause 2 as follows:

“2 Within 90 days of the coming into force of this Act, the Minister shall undertake discussions with the Government of Quebec in order to enter into, within a year, the agreement referred to in section 20.1 of An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces.”

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reading all of my amendments into the record.

I am very proud to introduce this bill in the House. The bill seeks to establish a single tax return administered by Quebec. I am also very proud that my bill received the support of a majority of the elected members of the House at second reading. The committee study went well. We had some enriching and constructive debates. From my perspective, the concerns about the transition and about jobs have been satisfactorily addressed. The proof is that the NDP decided to support the bill. I also believe that the committee study of this bill confirmed that Ottawa would maintain its own tax policy, and the only change would be having just one tax collector, namely Revenu Québec.

I cannot find the words to describe my shock and surprise at the Conservative members' decisions during the vote in committee. They chose to reject every clause of the bill, even its title. It was unbelievable. Obviously, the Government of Quebec has expressed its disappointment with the Conservatives' about-face in committee. They did not invite any witnesses and seemed to support the bill but then chose to vote against it.

That is why I am calling on the members of the House to vote again on this bill, which seeks to establish a single tax return for Quebeckers. If my colleagues support this bill, I encourage them to vote in favour of the amendments that I am proposing today and to support the implementation of a single tax return administered by Quebec.

I would also like to sincerely thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for supporting the bill in committee. The NDP said that it supported the principle of the bill but expressed concerns about protecting jobs. The debates in committee showed that it is perfectly possible to keep jobs in the regions. Since the federal public service is already understaffed and overly concentrated in Ottawa, the government would be free to reassign some staff to other duties.

The Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, or SFPQ, explained to the committee that it is fairly common to see employees move from one level of government to another and that this can be easily done. Employees would be able to keep their jobs and all of their benefits.

Let me go over what is proposed in the bill. It calls on the government to undertake negotiations with Quebec to enter into an agreement about a single tax return that would be administered by Quebec. The bill states that discussions must be undertaken within 90 days and an agreement reached within a year. That seems good to me. The bill also allows Revenu Québec to access Quebec taxpayers' foreign tax information for consistency. Lastly, the bill calls for special attention to maintaining jobs.

That is exactly what the Government of Quebec and Premier François Legault want. It is exactly what all parties in Quebec's National Assembly want, unanimously. It is exactly what Quebec's business community and unions, such as the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the SFPQ, want. It is exactly what the people of Quebec want. According to the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, eliminating duplication could save $425 million a year.

I was so surprised to see the Conservatives drop this bill during the vote in committee. They used job protection as an excuse to justify their actions. The bill I am introducing calls for protecting those jobs. In 2019, the Conservatives moved a motion in favour of a single tax return in Quebec and it proposed nothing to protect jobs. When the previous Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, said he supported a single tax return administered by Quebec, he never talked about protecting jobs. When this commitment was unanimously adopted at the Conservative convention in Halifax, it was never a question of protecting jobs. When this ended up in the Conservatives' platform during the last election, there was not a single word about job protection.

As soon as the bill was rejected in committee, the Conservative Quebec lieutenant was quick to note that his party was in favour of a single tax return administered by Quebec even though the Conservatives had just rejected this bill. The same goes for the Conservative leader: at his party's convention last Friday, he again made a very clear commitment to support the plan. The Conservatives are in favour of a single tax return provided there is no risk of it coming to fruition, but as soon as it gains traction they flee. I am asking the Conservative members to fix their mistake in committee and support the amendments I am presenting to implement the bill. Let them listen to the commitment made by their leader and their Quebec lieutenant.

Newspaper columnist and former Conservative Party staffer Marc-André Leclerc urged the Conservative leader to support my bill, saying that he “has a duty to prove that his love for the Quebec nation is not a fleeting love”.

Quebec Conservatives are disappointed with the way the Conservatives voted, because the bill has widespread support in Quebec.

I now want to reveal some new information to the House. The work done in committee helped us uncover the real reason that the government and the Liberal members are opposed to this bill. The reasons given in their speeches do not hold water and can be described as ridiculous at best.

From written correspondence provided in response to a question that I had submitted to the Department of Finance, we learned that Ottawa makes a lot of money from administering provincial taxes. Therefore, it is not in Ottawa's interest to let the provinces administer their taxes themselves. Above all, Ottawa does not want to set a precedent or give the provinces any ideas about administering their taxes themselves by following Quebec's example with this proposed single tax return.

In committee, the representatives of the Departments of Finance and National Revenue told us that Ottawa does not charge the provinces anything for collecting their taxes. By the Liberals' telling, the Canada Revenue Agency is practically a charity that is there to serve the provinces.

The only thing is that is not at all how it works. We have learned that the tax collection agreements are stacked heavily in favour of Ottawa. In these agreements, the federal government must remit to the provinces all of the taxes it collects on their behalf, without much of an effort. As soon as the federal government makes a little effort, it keeps the difference for itself. In five years, the federal government pocketed $4.5 billion in provincial taxes that it kept from the provinces. That is almost $1 billion a year. That is a tidy sum, and is certainly enough to convince the Liberals to oppose the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous request. It is best not to give the other provinces any ideas, for fear that Ottawa would lose out on $1 billion of the provinces' money a year. That may also have been the reason the Conservatives decided to fight the bill.

In presenting my amendments to the House, I encourage all members of Parliament to support a request from the Quebec National Assembly and its premier. I urge the Conservatives to change their minds. Scoring a goal is all well and good, but not when it is in your own net or in Quebec's. I urge the New Democrats to be consistent and show solidarity with Quebec's unanimous demand. It is possible to save the jobs. I urge the Liberals to do this for Quebec and work to make the government more efficient. By this, I mean that we need to eliminate duplication, since the work does not need to be done twice.

The government has the means to protect the jobs in the regions, as long as the will is there. The federal public service is understaffed and is far too centralized in Ottawa. I am calling on the Liberal members and all members of the House not to be swayed by the argument that Ottawa makes $1 billion a year on the backs of the provinces and that things need to stay the way they are. This is not right, and I would even say it is cheap.

I would also remind the House that after years of negotiation, Quebec City managed to come to an agreement with Ottawa regarding the collection of sales tax from businesses. Rather than Ottawa collecting the GST and Quebec collecting the QST, Revenu Québec collects both the GST and the QST at the same time. This means far less paperwork for businesses and generates significant savings. Revenu Québec is present in every region of Quebec, and this system works well. It has been successful, and no one complains about it.

Could we do the same thing with income tax? That is simply what this bill proposes, and I am confident that it will pass in the House.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a good evening to all my colleagues as we continue to operate virtually in this very extraordinary period of time. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak during today's report stage debate on Bill C-224, 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.

As the House is aware, after careful study, the majority of our colleagues on the finance committee have recommended that this legislation not proceed further. To briefly recap, this legislation would authorize the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements with the provincial government. As a result of these agreements, and under Bill C-224, the province would then be able to collect personal and corporate income taxes on behalf of the Government of Canada. Additionally, within 90 days of the legislation coming into force, the Minister of Finance would be obliged to undertake discussions with the Government of Quebec in order to enter into an agreement within one year.

During my time today, I would like to review the serious issues raised with this bill during the committee stage that prompted members to make the recommendation not to proceed with Bill C-224. Specifically, I want to mention four important areas of concern. They are the bill's potential impacts on public service employment levels in Quebec, the delivery of benefits to residents of Quebec, the fight against international tax evasion and the significant implementation cost of this proposal.

First, as noted by officials from the Canada Revenue Agency who appeared before the finance committee, Bill C-224 would create tremendous uncertainty surrounding job security for the nearly six thousand CRA employees in Quebec, as well as many other CRA employees outside of Quebec.

A CRA official who appeared before the committee on February 16, 2021, said, “The agency’s workloads are national, meaning that the work of a particular province can be done in several other provinces. Therefore, although the impact on jobs would be most significant in the province which would choose to repatriate tax operations, many jobs across the country could be impacted.”

This is a real concern about job security that was also shared by representatives of various public sector unions who also appeared before the finance committee. For instance, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada stated, “it’s critical that we not lose sight of the impact this could have on employment in Shawinigan and Jonquière, where the Canada Revenue Agency provides good jobs to a great many people. I cannot think of a worse time than the middle of a pandemic to start thinking about cutting jobs in smaller communities.”

The CRA is a government leader in the decentralization of its jobs. They are not at all concentrated in the national capital region, as is often the case with federal jobs. Employees cannot be easily redeployed to other departments. Similarly, the national president of the Union of Taxation Employees echoed this apprehension about the job losses that could result due to the passage of Bill C-224 by informing the finance committee of the following:

...massive job losses will clearly ensue if this bill is passed and the federal government hands over administration of Quebec's federal taxes to the provincial government. The Canada Revenue Agency currently employs approximately 6,000 people in Quebec, and our union represents about 4,000 of them. Revenu Québec has around 12,000 employees. Together, the two agencies therefore have a total workforce of approximately 18,000 people. If we compare that to the CRA's total workforce in Canada outside of Quebec, which is about 39,000 employees, it's easy to see that there would be a surplus of employees in Quebec if the bill is passed.

I would like to point out that the vast majority of jobs that would be lost are held by people living in the province of Quebec. They pay taxes there and greatly contribute to the province's economic activity. Basically, they are Quebeckers from all over Quebec, as the national president of the Union of Taxation Employees pointed out when he said, “Included in these job losses are more than 1,200 employees in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and 1,500 in Mauricie.”

As I have clearly demonstrated, Bill C-224 could represent a serious negative impact on job security for the thousands of public servants in Quebec, which is especially unfortunate because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

In that regard, I cannot believe that the Bloc Québécois, a party that claims to stand up for the people, could imagine that jeopardizing the livelihood of thousands of Quebeckers in the Quebec City region is a good idea.

As the Bloc Québécois leader said yesterday at a press conference, when you take an interest in the regions, you take a real interest.

The second area of concern I would like to highlight with Bill C-224 is its potential negative impact on the delivery of benefits to residents of Quebec, as explained by the CRA official who appeared before the finance committee. The CRA and the Government of Canada use information obtained by the CRA to administer key federal benefit programs, such as the guaranteed income supplement and the child care benefit. Tax information is needed to administer these programs to ensure individuals get their benefits. This official went on to state that a transfer of administration to a province could impede the administrative effectiveness of these programs, which are crucial for the well-being of Canadians. Without tax information on hand, COVID-19 emergency benefits, which are crucial to the well-being of Canadians, would not have been possible to implement as quickly.

A third point of concern I would like to flag with Bill C-224 is its potential negative impact on Canada's fight against international tax evasion. Part of the CRA's mandate is to ensure the tax compliance of Canadians, both domestically and abroad. For this reason, the Government of Canada has signed many critical international tax treaties and tax information exchange agreements to help ensure the CRA's ability to fight international tax evasion. However, as noted by the CRA official at the finance committee, convincing our partners to make changes to include other subnational tax administrations is not a given.

A representative of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada warned that Bill C-224 could negatively affect Canada's fight to combat international tax evasion, stating that because international agreements aimed at fighting tax evasion are signed between central governments, it would be difficult for Quebec to perform the federal government's work in this area without a great many treaties being redrafted. This could lead to increased tax evasion at a time when billions of dollars are sitting offshore that the government is trying to recoup. This is money that is badly needed to fund the public programs and services Canadians depend on every day.

A fourth and final concern with Bill C-224 is the significant potential implementation cost of the proposal, as there would clearly be cost increases and loss of economies of scale. A CRA official explained to the finance committee that the required integration between both the CRA and Revenu Québec processes and techniques would incur significant additional expenses.

In summary, these four areas represented real, substantive worries for the expert witnesses who appeared before the finance committee and helped inform the recommendation of the majority of the members of the finance committee not to proceed with this bill, a recommendation that I also support.

Before concluding, though, I would like to briefly note the important efforts the Government of Canada, through the CRA, has taken to reduce the administrative burden on Quebec taxpayers. In fact, the CRA has started discussions with the Province of Quebec to simplify or combine some tax forms and to simplify the income tax return process. This is an important and responsible step that I think all members would applaud and support.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for almost three years now, our party has been actively fighting for a single tax return for Quebec. Our position goes back a long time.

For a political party like ours, which respects provincial jurisdiction, listening to the provinces and collaborating with them is crucial. After all, we are the party that gave Quebec its UNESCO seat, that recognized the Quebec nation and that fixed the fiscal imbalance. We are the party that fought for the Meech Lake accord. In short, the Conservative Party has an excellent record when it comes to respecting the provinces and their jurisdiction.

The provincial government and Quebeckers themselves responded very positively to the idea of a single tax return, which our party advanced in 2018. Currently, Quebec is the only province with two tax returns, one for Ottawa and the other for Quebec. This situation dates back to the Second World War. In 1941, the provinces agreed to temporarily hand their power to tax personal and corporate income over to the federal government. That situation ended up being permanent, not temporary.

However, in 1954, the Government of Quebec created its own personal income tax and started administering its own income tax system. The ability to administer its own system is critical to Quebec's autonomy.

Just as Quebec marked Canadian history in 1954, we have the possibility in the House of Commons to simplify life for Quebeckers and continue the march toward a single tax return for Quebec, administered by Quebec. It is an idea we have been presenting for nearly three years now. At first Bill C-227 provided its sponsor the opportunity to take a positive step in that direction and bring us together around his bill, but now it is a different story.

First, the deadlines set out in the bill are unrealistic. Did it ever occur to the member for Joliette that the party currently in power is the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that is hostile to provincial demands?

As currently worded, the bill calls on the federal Minister of Finance to enter into discussions with the Government of Quebec within 90 days of the passage of the bill. What is more, the bill recommends discussions on an agreement within a year. Do they honestly believe that the Liberal Party of Canada will negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec to allow it to have a single tax return?

It would have been wiser for the Bloc Québécois to wait for a Conservative government to be elected before initiating such discussions, since the Conservatives are much more in tune with the needs of the provinces. There is no doubt that an agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Quebec would have been much more beneficial for la belle province than one negotiated by a Liberal government.

In fact, recent events show that the Liberal government is not very responsive to Quebec's demands. Quebec is calling for an increase in health transfers with no strings attached. The federal government responded by seeking to impose Canada-wide standards in Quebec's long-term care facilities. That shows a complete lack of trust in Quebec.

Fortunately, the Conservatives not only want to increase health transfers in a stable, predictable way with no strings attached, but we also want to take action for Quebec in other areas, namely by applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses, such as banks, and by giving Quebec more authority over immigration.

Second, rather than sticking to one bill to obtain a single tax return for Quebec, the member for Joliette chose to use this opportunity to promote a completely different agenda. That should not have happened.

Nowhere in its unanimous motion to support the creation of a single tax return did the Quebec National Assembly request negotiating powers with tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions in order to amend the tax treaties and agreements regarding income tax and Canada's tax information exchange agreements. That is a whole other debate that is hindering the passage of the bill.

Although we support Quebec's autonomist vision, foreign relations are definitely a federal jurisdiction. Why, then, include this in the bill?

Is the Bloc Québécois really set on having a single tax return? Did it not know that including this clause would derail the debate? The Bloc Québécois's position on this issue is unfortunate, but not surprising.

The Bloc Québécois is using this clause to have it both ways. The single tax return is in itself a huge win for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois always has to push the envelope.

Third, the bill provides no guarantee that Canadian public service jobs will be maintained following this change. The people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord know me. I have always said that the single tax return should be brought in without causing any job losses. I can say that this bill does not provide any guarantees about that.

The public service has quality, well-paid jobs in the regions. The Conservative Party has always wanted the regions, and not just Montreal, to develop and have their fair share of the pie. It is in the same spirit that the provincial government has a plan to move public service jobs to the regions.

Unfortunately, if our Bloc Québécois colleagues had paid attention to what was said by the stakeholders who appeared before the committee, including the union representing the workers, they would know that the bill, in its present form, does nothing at all to protect jobs.

This bill jeopardizes an important sector for regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the Mauricie. We are in the midst of a pandemic; now is not the time to jeopardize jobs. Now is the time to take action for our families, our workers and Quebec.

If the purpose of Bill C-224, in its present form, was to encourage the creation of a single tax return, then it misses the mark. The Bloc Québécois should leave managing to managers and let the Conservatives finish what they started with respect to the single tax return. In other words, the Bloc should let the Conservatives introduce, negotiate and implement the single tax return. The Bloc Québécois's bill is a very good illustration of the expression “give someone an inch and they will take a mile”.

Rather than proposing effective solutions for Quebeckers to make their lives easier, the Bloc Québécois's bill just stirs up quarrels between Ottawa and Quebec. The Conservative Party will continue to push for a pragmatic and effective solution to give Quebeckers the single tax return they deserve, while respecting workers and the regions.

I will close by saying that the Conservative Party will not need a private member's bill to take action. We have every intention of forming the next government, of picking up the phone to call the Government of Quebec and of negotiating and creating a single tax return for Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a pre-election speech full of partisanship. It is actually quite interesting.

I would like to say one thing before I begin my speech.

As the NDP deputy critic for the environment, I must point out that the announcement about an endangered species in the St. Lawrence River, the copper redhorse, did not get the attention it should have from the Liberal government's Minister of Environment. Biologists were forced to admit that this government is not very serious. The proposals being made do not reflect the fact that we really need to protect an endangered species.

I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Joliette. There may be a misunderstanding at report stage. This is really important to the NDP. It is part of our tradition. We generally believe that bills should not be killed in committee after being supported at second reading. It was therefore for the sake of consistency that my colleague voted to bring this bill back to the House. We thought that made sense. While the Conservatives were filibustering and trying to block the bill in committee, we voted for it in principle. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby did what needed to be done, in the progressive tradition of the New Democrats, to respect that basic principle and bring the bill back to the House.

This does not mean that we were reassured by the work in committee and by what we heard there. I will come back to that in a few minutes. It was a Bloc member, a colleague of the member for Joliette, who gave us the final argument, confirming that there was no way to be sure that this bill would guarantee and protect very important jobs in the regions, particularly in Mauricie and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

I wanted to set the record straight at the outset.

I am going to back up a bit. I too want to briefly go back to the Second World War. In 1941, the provinces administered income taxes, but in a concerted war effort, there was a willingness to give the federal government the means to take action, which was only natural. Then there was an attempt and willingness to hold on to that power. Once one has a certain power I imagine it is hard to let go of it. However, in 1954, the Government of Quebec reinstated a provincial tax.

Shortly after, in 1955-56, an agreement was reached to ensure that Quebec taxpayers would not pay a higher percentage in taxes than Canadians, who paid only to Ottawa. Then, Ottawa started providing subsidies or payments proportional to the amounts that were given to the different provinces. That system seems to work well, but as a result Quebeckers have long been the only citizens to have to file two tax returns. I will come back later to the modern definition of two tax returns, since many things have changed since 1955-56. Sometimes it is good to go over it again.

We agreed, in principle. Before the Conservatives took on that position, the NDP had adopted a resolution at its convention, stating that we agreed with having a single tax return for Quebeckers. We believe that the Government of Quebec should have that autonomy. The resolution had two parts, however. The member for Joliette will recall my previous speeches, in which I said that we agreed with the principle, but that this measure must not come at the expense of the public servants working in Quebec's regions. Otherwise, we would just be trading four quarters for a dollar. We would be giving a government an additional power, but penalizing thousands of families.

We therefore voted in favour of the bill at second reading. The bill would be sent to committee. We did our homework before going to committee. We met with people working at Revenue Canada tax centres, to ask them how the work could be rearranged and what additional tasks these employees could take on. We need to come up with a game plan and make some guarantees that these people will not be left high and dry. Half of them would maybe be saved, while the other half will have to look for work.

It is much more complicated than it seems, as demonstrated once again in committee. It is not as easy as waving a magic wand and saying that now that something is written in the law, it will undoubtedly happen. The Bloc Québécois lent this magic wand to the Conservatives for a few months, until the Conservatives also realized that it could not be done. Today, it is rather amusing to see the Conservatives listening so carefully to the federal public service unions. They are not quite so attentive when they are in power, but for now, they seem to have listened to reason and understood that people cannot be trained, be reassigned and have their work reorganized in that manner.

For example, assigning people to fight tax havens would be a good thing, but it is not at all the same type of work, and the skills and requirements are different. This is magical thinking. Workers in the sector told the committee as much, and I believe that out of respect for these workers and their families, we should really be listening to them, because they are the experts. The NDP did its homework before going to committee, but we continued to listen to them.

We heard other things in committee too. For example, the Bloc Québécois claims that tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars can be saved with nary a job lost. It is a new magic wand, and I would sure like to know how that works. Basically, the money pays for labour and wages. If they are claiming savings of hundreds of millions of dollars, they cannot also say that all those people will stay employed. That makes no sense. It is like saying the government is going to cut taxes and increase spending. It is exactly the same contradiction.

During an exchange with the member for Joliette, the member for La Prairie said that only “44% of the 5,300 people are really useful”. That is right in the Standing Committee on Finance evidence. He just said that the other half are technically useless. I would like him to tell the other 3,000 employees that they are useless. Is that the Bloc Québécois' vision for regional economic development and respect for workers? That is really bad.

The member for La Prairie went on to say, “This means that 2,332 of the 5,300 people would remain employed”. It is not hard to figure out that this means 3,000 people would lose their jobs and their pay. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the member for La Prairie said, and anyone can read it in the committee evidence. They are prepared to sacrifice 3,000 jobs in the regions. They are prepared to sacrifice 3,000 families because they have sunk their teeth into this and are not willing to let go.

There is something Bloc Québécois does not realize. In addition to hurting workers, is not having to fill out two paper tax returns really that useful nowadays? The reality is that hardly anyone fills out their tax returns at home using two forms they picked up at the credit union, right by the door, like they did 15 or 20 years ago.

Most professionals say that, since 2016, the majority of Quebeckers, at least 60%, have their tax returns done by chartered accountants and that 40% still complete their own tax returns. Of that 40%, 75% complete their tax return using online software. When people complete the online form, they are actually completing an income tax return, and the online software puts the information in the appropriate boxes for the little blue sheet or the little red sheet. This hardly has any impact on people's lives anymore. We are talking about 10% or 12% of Quebeckers who still complete two copies of their income tax return on paper.

Is that worth sacrificing 3,000 good jobs? Is that worth making 3,000 families suffer? That percentage drops every year. In a few years, hardly anybody will be filing a paper tax return on their own without the help of a professional.

For all of these reasons, the NDP will not support this bill because it does not serve the interests of Quebeckers and workers.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about proverbs earlier. As I listened to my Conservative Party colleague and my NDP colleague, it made me think of these words from Falardeau: “We always go too far for people who are going nowhere.” That neatly sums up how change scares people like them, even if it is for the better. They get scared the minute we start talking about change.

The Conservatives, who are traditionally in favour of the idea of a single tax return, introduced and debated a motion in the House in 2019. They based it on a motion that was unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly on May 15, 2018. I know because I was the one who moved that motion in the National Assembly.

The Conservatives spent an entire day debating that motion. Now they are telling us that they no longer support it, because they know the Liberals do not want a single tax return. They want to kill the bill before the Liberals do. That is a great way to play politics—do the dirty work because they know someone else will do it anyway. Are we here to make life better for people, or are we here to play politics for the sole purpose of protecting our jobs?

While the Conservatives know that a single tax return would be better for everyone and for all Quebeckers, it would also be a win for the Bloc Québécois. The last thing the Conservatives want is for us to prove once again that the Bloc is useful to the public. That is the problem.

They would rather see people continue to spend money unnecessarily on two tax returns, and see public servants continue to do the same work twice. However, those public servants could be freed up to do other things. We never said they should be fired. We said that, since they are already being paid, why not use these competent individuals to do something else in the public service at a time when there is a shortage of workers? Am I the only one here who understands that? It is obvious.

According to a scientific study by the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, known as IRAI, the public service would save $287 million. There it is in black and white, backed with evidence, and yet, it is being opposed.

A hospital like Hôpital Pierre-Le Gardeur costs $205 million to build. That is what the savings could amount to for Quebec. With that money, we could build at least one hospital a year, which would improve people's health. That is what we want to do for people.

It makes no sense to have officials doing the same work at two different locations. This does not mean that jobs in the regions will be eliminated. Those people could do other things. We know that the public service is understaffed. There is a shortage of workers. It is looking for people right now. The pandemic will not last forever.

The Conservatives just cannot understand that. They no longer know what to say and are mixing up the dates and figures. They swear that they did not see it that way. You are either for the single tax return or against it. It is like being pregnant: Either you are pregnant or you are not; there is no in-between.

Sure, we will have to sign agreements with the other countries, because we will become tax collectors. That is what the Conservatives need to understand, but are not able to. As soon as we try to do something good for Quebec, they oppose it.

Quebeckers support the fight against climate change, but they do not even understand what it is.

Quebeckers support protecting supply management, but they oppose it because they would rather sell their western beef. They voted against supply management. That is a fact.

There is a consensus in Quebec on medical assistance in dying. They wanted to block it. Nothing ever changes with the Conservatives.

This, here, is a smart bill that has been fine-tuned. We have been thinking about it for decades. We did this in 1991 with GST and QST. We managed to set up two collectors, two sales taxes with different parameters. We have done it before, and this is no different. Revenu Québec does it, and it saves us more than $190 million a year.

I see that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has steam coming out of his ears yet again. This happens every time we try to do something good for Quebec. He is unrecognizable and says things that make no sense. He is saying that people no longer file paper tax returns. That is obvious. Does he really think that we do not know that?

The IRAI estimates we would save $99 million for businesses and $39 million for people who file their tax returns at home. These figures took into account that people use their computers to file.

A scientific study by François Vaillancourt has shown that it takes a person in Quebec 10% more time to file their taxes because they have two returns to fill out. It does not say that it took 50% more time, but 10% more time, because we know that people are not filing paper returns. By saving that 10%, businesses would save $99 million and individuals would save $39 million, for a total of $425 million in savings for Quebec. That is what is driving us.

The National Assembly of Quebec wants this. The Premier of Quebec wants this. Business people want this. Even accountants want this. The Conservatives told the Premier of Quebec that they supported it. They told Quebeckers that they supported it. However, they just did an about-face yet again with explanations that make no sense.

At some point, we have to be here for the right reasons. For our part, we are here for the right reasons. We are in politics for our people. We respond to the aspirations of Quebec. We are here when Quebec needs something. We are here for a single tax return. We are here for climate change. We were here to prevent medical assistance in dying from being at the mercy of the religious right in the Conservative Party. We were here and we will continue to be here.

I was happy to be a Bloc member because the Bloc is the only party that truly stands up for Quebeckers. The Conservative Party is unable to look Quebeckers in the eyes and tell them that they stand up for them. I do not know how Conservative members from Quebec can look at themselves in the mirror. They are completely out of touch with the reality of Quebeckers. Quebeckers are no fools.

The same goes for the NDP. It is no better. It said it would vote in favour, but then it messed everything up by voting against in the end. As for jobs, now they are being cut because of this drive to optimize the public service. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has obviously never run a company. The idea is not to fire these people. It is to find something more constructive for them to do so they can serve the public even better for the same pay. Who could be against that?

We have reached this point because the Conservative Party cannot figure out what to focus on. It is even using unions to justify its actions. That really takes the cake. The Conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying to explain an untenable position.

Before I go to bed at night, I look at myself in the mirror, I look at my constituents, I talk to them. Last weekend, people who used to vote Conservative told me they could not imagine the Conservatives being against the single tax return. I told them that if they were in the House, they would have other reasons not to vote for the Conservatives anymore.

I can say that we, the Bloc Québécois, look voters straight in the eye. I am not embarrassed to say that we will fight tooth and nail for them. We are here for that very reason, and we will be here as long as Quebec is sending money to Ottawa. That is our money, and we are going to make sure that it is managed properly, because the single tax return will pay off for Quebeckers.

That is why members will always find the Bloc Québécois in their path. We will push for this because we can do the math. The only interests we care about are Quebeckers' interests.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 4.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-224.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 4.