Finance Committee on Feb. 16th, 2021

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

That's right. This means that 56% of the work is done twice, unnecessarily. According to the Minister of National Revenue, 5,300 jobs are dedicated to federal tax filing. In other words, if we remove 56% of the activities done twice, we're left with 44% of the 5,300 people who are really useful and who should be retained for tax filing.

Am I making sense?

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

Yes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

This means that 2,332 of the 5,300 people would remain employed by the Canada Revenue Agency or Revenu Québec. Since Quebeckers file two tax returns, this creates a surplus of work. That said, 2,332 people are needed to carry out this work, not 5,300 people. The $287 million in savings occurs there.

Is that right, Mr. Ste-Marie?

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

You're saying that 2,332 Canada Revenue Agency employees are carrying out work that isn't already being carried out by Revenu Québec. These jobs must be maintained.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

That's right. This means that Revenu Québec would hire the 2,332 federal public servants and give them a job with the same working conditions.

In principle, only 2,968 jobs would be lost. The 2,968 people could be assigned to more productive and profitable tasks for a nation that needs a strong and experienced public service and that's currently experiencing a labour shortage.

The attrition rate, meaning the number of people retiring each year, is 3% at the Canada Revenue Agency, which has 44,000 employees. This means that, over the next three years— the project will take place over three years—3,960 people will retire.

Am I making sense?

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

I still understand you. Based on what you just said, it would be possible to protect jobs while saving money.

For a number of years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the public service to stop centralizing positions in Ottawa so that each region can benefit from these jobs. A salary of $50,000 a year has a greater impact in Shawinigan than in Ottawa.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

The 2,332 jobs that would be retained and that may be used by the Quebec government could be filled by people in Shawinigan and Jonquière. If there were an agreement with the Quebec government, there would be an obligation to maintain part of the public service in the already designated locations.

Do you agree?

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

I agree.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

We're talking about the GST, QST and $145 million in savings. Why couldn't we do the same thing? There could be $287 million in savings if the Canada Revenue Agency were to entrust part of the tax returns to Quebec.

Could you tell me what I missed? Why would $287 million in savings be an issue? You must explain this to me, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

I agree with you and I don't understand it either.

You'll recall that Yves Séguin, the former finance minister for the Quebec Liberal government, made this request in 2004. Let's hope that we can make it a reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is your last question, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I know that the request for the single tax return was submitted on May 15, 2018, since I was the one who submitted it in Quebec City. When I submitted the request, Québec solidaire, Coalition Avenir Québec and even Philippe Couillard's very federalist Liberal Party supported it. We expected Philippe Couillard to oppose it. However, even the very federalist Philippe Couillard and Carlos Leitão from the Liberal Party voted in favour of the motion, which passed unanimously.

Mr. Berthold said that we don't know whether it's good for Quebec. However, the fact is that Quebec unanimously requested it in the National Assembly. The Bloc Québécois is here to address Quebec's aspirations and interests.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I said that it was good for Quebec.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

So vote in favour of the bill.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Julian with the NDP. We'll see if your mike works, Peter.

Can somebody from the Conservatives give me a signal who's next? They're first on the next round.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope that you can hear me properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I can.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you for tabling this very good bill, Mr. Ste-Marie. Of course, the NDP voted in favour of it because NDP members have introduced the same type of approach in the past.

Having lived in Quebec for several years and having been forced to fill out two tax returns, I understood the importance of this type of bill. It would lighten the individual load of taxpayers who must fill out two tax returns one after the other. I even took courses in Sherbrooke to fully understand the differences between the two tax returns. It takes a great deal of time to fill them out. This is something that your bill addresses, Mr. Ste-Marie.

The NDP's position has always been that we need to maintain the jobs of the public servants who process these tax returns. As a former resident of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean who learned French in Chicoutimi, I fully understand the value of the work done by public servants in Jonquière and Shawinigan. These individuals are hardworking and dedicated. They carry out effective and high-quality work. Having lived in four regions of Quebec, namely, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Eastern Townships, the east end of Montreal and the Outaouais, I also understand how these jobs contribute to the regions.

Unfortunately, Mr. Therrien just referred to “useful people.” In our opinion, all the positions are useful. We're listening very carefully to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, in Quebec. It's talking about the importance of keeping all the positions involved. My first question concerns this issue.

It worries me that we're talking about eliminating positions when there's so much work to do. This isn't what we're seeing. When we talk about the single tax return, we're talking about retaining positions and broadening the tax mandate.

Mr. Ste-Marie, can you talk about the retention of all the current positions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your presentation and for your very insightful comments. I also want to thank the NDP for supporting this bill at second reading.

The purpose of this bill is to take into account a desire that's completely legitimate and widely shared by all Quebec citizens. This desire is to fill out one income tax return instead of two. At the same time, I'm particularly concerned about the Canada Revenue Agency employees who work in Shawinigan and Jonquière.

My colleague Mr. Therrien and I are in no way questioning the quality of the work done by federal public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency. We're saying that a Revenu Québec employee is doing the same job as a Canada Revenue Agency employee. The work is therefore done twice. This becomes a burden for taxpayers, who must fill out two tax returns, and for businesses, which must also fill out two tax returns. This also poses an issue in terms of effectiveness.

This bill calls for negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa. I'm asking the government to show strong consideration for job retention. The bill has a part where it talks about paying attention to jobs. I'm asking the federal government to ensure that a certain number of public service jobs remain in Shawinigan and Jonquière so that the number of jobs stays the same. There will still be jobs at the Canada Revenue Agency if a single tax return is introduced. Some employees could stay there, but other employees could also work for different departments, as long as the government asks that the level of public service activity be maintained in Shawinigan and Jonquière. People could work for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, for example.

Mr. Julian, you said in the House that the public servants in question could be transferred to the Canada Revenue Agency to help fight against the use of tax havens. This depends on the government's wishes. I'm making this request because I believe, like you, that a job that pays $50,000 a year in Jonquière or Shawinigan is significant.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I want to clarify something.

You're saying that all the positions of the public servants who are currently working at the Canada Revenue Agency could be maintained within the tax administration system. Is that right? It isn't clear to me.

Are you advocating for the retention of all these jobs?

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

I'll try to be clearer.

The goal of the single tax return is to eliminate overlap. This concerns employees who are doing the same work. This is about keeping one person for each job. For a number of years, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have been calling for the decentralization of the public service in order to boost its presence in the regions.

In addition, the federal public service is currently understaffed. In terms of eliminating overlap, we're calling on the government to consider the importance of jobs in the regions and to protect those jobs. For example, positions in Ottawa could be moved to Shawinigan and Jonquière. Otherwise, since the public service is understaffed, steps could be taken to ensure that other departments, in their re-hiring strategy, refer their employees to Jonquière and Shawinigan to stabilize these jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both.

We'll go to Mr. Lawrence, for a five-minute round, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz.

Mr. Lawrence, go ahead.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our colleague for appearing here today.

First, I just want to clarify something. All this bill calls for is a negotiation right. You have to enter into negotiations within three months, and then you're calling on them to have a negotiation within a year. Is that correct?

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

Yes, that's correct.