Finance Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2021

[Debi Daviau]

Yes, I certainly believe that, from a worker's perspective, which is really the only perspective that we can bring, harmonization is a great idea. Their jobs are so much more complicated because of the need to deal in two different tax regimes. It limits the ability to be able to collect taxes as effectively as possible. It makes everybody's job more difficult.

I certainly believe that harmonization should be on the table, but it's not. This is a bill that simply has Quebec take over the administration of federal taxes, which is the reverse of the scenario for all other provinces in Canada. It's going to have a negative impact on federal jobs. It's going to have, potentially, a negative impact on those smaller communities where those federal jobs are located. We don't actually think that it's going to simplify anything for anybody because the problem at the root is that you have two very different income tax acts. They are very different and complex, as I said—acts that are, like, four inches thick. Those will need to be harmonized before you can get to anything like a single form.

There are solutions, I believe, to make taxes simpler for Quebeckers. I am a Quebecker. [Technical difficulty—Editor] are looked at. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but automatization is the way to simplify taxes for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Gaudreau.

[Julien Gaudreau]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We should first note that the bill doesn't focus on the harmonization issue. It could have, but that would obviously make the proposed process more complicated.

Given the political unanimity on the issue of Quebec's fiscal autonomy, it seems obvious that harmonization could simplify Quebeckers' tax returns. This streamlining process should involve the federal government. While respecting Quebec's fiscal autonomy, the federal government would relinquish its definition of taxable income to Quebec.

This would certainly be somewhat complex. However, if all stakeholders act in good faith, we believe that the process would undoubtedly be more effective in the long term. This would also constitute a recognition of fiscal autonomy and, more generally, of Quebec's autonomy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. McLeod, do you have another quick question?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I have one quick question. I'm listening, trying to understand everything that's going on, and I hear the number of employees, in the thousands, who are involved and could be affected, or would have to transfer if there was agreement to go to one system. Two unions are involved. I'm curious. Are the unions in agreement that one would represent the other in case one of the governments decided to allow the other one to take over? Would there possibly be some conflict between the unions and resistance regarding job losses, transferring from one union to another?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Daviau.

[Debi Daviau]

A whole process has to be gone through when members need to be recertified, so if there's a devolution to the province or vice versa, the provincial employees join the federal workers. A process would be undertaken under the labour board to determine which union would represent each of these members.

It's not a conflict-based process. It's a legal process we all must follow, and that would be determined by the labour board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sylvestre.

[Jean-François Sylvestre]

We aren't the only representatives of Revenu Québec. There are seven in total, including professionals, lawyers, for example. Several unions would be affected by this merger.

On our end, there's indeed an issue regarding the protection of members. As Mr. Brière said, we can't shy away from it. We must also remember that employees are much more protected at the provincial level than at the federal level, particularly with respect to the Quebec labour code. The protection is very extensive under the Quebec labour code compared to the Canada Labour Code. There are significant differences between the two codes.

While this protection is important to members, it would be difficult for the two unions or for several unions to reach an agreement, Mr. McLeod. The bases are very different. Mr. Brière represents the Canada Revenue Agency people across the country. We also represent the employees of several Quebec government departments and agencies. Several unions are involved, and it would be much more difficult. However, the biggest issue would be protection under the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec labour code, given the differences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's what we find, Mr. Sylvestre. In politics it's very difficult to please everyone.

Mr. Brière.

[Marc Brière]

We have the same problem as union leaders. I work with thousands of members, so I can tell you that.

As Ms. Daviau said, there's a process for deciding who represents employees and at which location. There's a huge difference between the Canadian and Quebec public services in terms of working conditions and collective agreements, among other things. There are major differences.

For example, federal employees have higher salaries than provincial employees. At the federal level, people make the same salary from coast to coast, whereas salaries vary significantly from province to province. A Revenu Québec employee whose work is similar to the work done at the Canada Revenue Agency receives thousands of dollars less. This is another issue. It would be complicated to transfer people from one place to another.

With respect to union membership, a process must be followed. I want to point out that some Revenu Québec employees recently considered joining my union or the Public Service Alliance of Canada, but it didn't work out. There was a legal union organizing drive. People looked at what was being done at the Canada Revenue Agency and they may have seen some benefits. However, they stayed with their union at Revenu Québec, and that's their right. This was done according to the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we are going to have to end it there. We have a hard stop at 6:00 tonight Ottawa time.

I think Julie raised a question raised on where and how many job losses outside of Quebec. Whether you can answer that or not, I'm not sure, but if you could send any information on that to the clerk, that would be helpful.

Usually when we talk to CRA, it isn't an exciting discussion as a rule, but as Julie and Michael said, this was a really interesting discussion this afternoon, and I want to thank all of you for outlining your points pretty directly. We had a very good discussion, so thank you very much to the witnesses for that.

To committee members, on Bill C-208, we haven't made a lot of decisions on how we want to handle that. We know that Mr. Maguire is coming before the committee.

Could I suggest, for the moment, that we try to arrange a three-hour meeting for witnesses on Mr. Maguire's bill? We could have two panels, an hour and a half each, and four witnesses on each of those panels. We could start with eight witnesses. That would be a start. It might be enough to complete it; I don't know.

In any event, if members could have their witnesses in as soon as possible from the various parties, that would be great. We'll start with eight, we'll try for a three-hour meeting and we might be able to get it. We'll see what happens.

If there's no disagreement on that point, all right, folks, the meeting is adjourned.

Again, thank you to the witnesses for the presentations today and a very interesting discussion.