Debates of Feb. 5th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Single Tax Return in Quebec

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about everyone agrees that having a single tax return makes the most sense and would save time and money.

We know that individuals spend $300 million and businesses spend $400 million every year to prepare their tax returns. I do not understand the Liberal's very weak argument. It is as though they are telling us that even though having a single tax return would save money, it would result in job losses. Could these people not be used to fight tax evasion or improve the efficiency of the Phoenix pay system? I think these public servants would be very happy with that.

Then we have our Conservative friends who, with an election looming and even though they have not taken action on this issue, are suddenly presenting this request. We agree that it is a good thing.

However, we do not agree with their assertion that the Conservative government respects provincial jurisdictions. We have seen their response concerning Quebec: they refuse to reconsider multiculturalism, and they support institutional bilingualism and kick-starting energy east.

The NDP says that it is not necessarily against the principle, but they will not support it in order to save jobs. I believe it would be more logical to support the principle—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We only have time for the answer.

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very broad. I can tell him that the Conservative Party is the only party in the House that will be able to fulfill the election promise of bringing in a single tax return to improve the everyday lives of Quebeckers.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Gatineau. Before I get to my speech, there are a few things that I heard here in the House that I cannot help but comment on.

When the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was asked what would happen to the 5,500 Canada Revenue Agency jobs at risk in the regions of Quebec, he told us that this is a detail to be ironed out. The 5,500 families who depend on these jobs do not see this as merely a detail. When asked how the Conservatives would solve this problem, he said that he believes in his leader. Quebeckers are not fooled. They know very well that before the election, the Conservatives try to sweet-talk Quebeckers. They smile broadly and try to sell them on the concept of open federalism.

We heard the member for Lévis—Lotbinière talking about the Conservatives’ yeses in Quebec and giving a list of promises for the future. However, historically, the Conservatives said no to appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. The Conservative government appointed two unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court of Canada despite the opinions of the National Assembly, the entire legal profession, and Quebeckers. They appointed unilingual anglophone officers of Parliament. In Quebec, they destroyed the data from the firearms registry, while the National Assembly and the entire political class in Quebec wanted to keep it. That was the open federalism of Stephen Harper’s government that they are so proud of. Quebeckers are not fooled, and they have a long memory. They will not soon forget it.

In short, unlike what the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the bunch opposite are saying, 5,500 jobs are not mere details.

I will now get to my speech on the motion before us today. This may sound attractive, but the issue is much more complex than my colleagues on the other side of the House think. I wish to begin by enlightening them on a few aspects of their motion.

The Canada Revenue Agency is our national tax administrator and has developed a great deal of expertise in harmonizing the federal tax rules with the various provincial and territorial ones. The CRA has signed a number of ever-evolving collection agreements across the country, so it understands best what kind of flexibility is needed when considering the social and economic policy objectives of each province or territory.

So far, the federal government, nine provinces and three territories have harmonized their definitions of income and have a single tax return for individuals, which is administered by the federal government. Quebec has different definitions, different rules and different exemptions. For Quebec to have a single tax return and for these taxes to be administered effectively, harmonization would be required. However, the Conservatives are not saying how this would happen. They are saying that, just like with the jobs, these details can be sorted out later, and that they believe in their leader. They cannot tell us how this harmonization would work. Would Quebec harmonize with the rest of the country, or vice versa? This was my first point.

Second, since it administers harmonized regimes, and like any good administrator, the CRA was able to achieve economies of scale. In fact, administrative costs for managing the provincial and territorial programs are covered by the federal government when the programs are identical.

We can agree that administering two programs that are not harmonized costs money. That is the rub. Harmonizing two programs comes at a cost. The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec agree on that. However, if the Premier of Quebec asks for a refund for the administrative costs borne by Quebec for administering the federal program, as he said he would, that is where the two governments no longer agree. Why pay that kind of money?

The CRA is more than qualified to administer its federal tax program. We can see why the Government of Canada thinks that this type of scenario would not be beneficial to Canadians or Quebeckers.

Third, my colleagues across the way seem to be unaware of the CRA's considerable expertise internationally, even though they formed the government for 10 years. The Canada Revenue Agency is a world-class tax administrator and represents Canada among many international partners. This expertise is put to use for fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Over the past three years, our government has invested over $1 billion in the fight against tax evasion. Clearly, the Stephen Harper government, which the Conservatives are so proud of, never made fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance a priority. In fact, the revenue minister of the day, Mr. Blackburn, even told the Journal de Montréal last summer in a burst of candour and honesty that, under Mr. Harper, the fight against tax evasion was never a priority and they did not even talk about it. It was not important to them. Obviously, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

On the contrary, the government is determined to ensure that all individuals and all businesses pay their fair share of taxes. We are determined to make it much harder for those who choose to avoid paying their taxes.

Because of the over $1 billion in investments that we made in the past three budgets, the CRA now has the tools and means to work and exchange financial information with tax authorities around the world.

We also greatly surpassed our goal to recover $319.5 million in additional tax revenues in 2017-18 by recovering $500 million in additional taxes. We made investments in the CRA to hire over 1,300 more auditors, enhance infrastructure development, improve the risk assessment system, and strengthen its capacity to target cases of tax evasion for investigation and criminal prosecution purposes.

As soon as the investments were announced in 2016, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, announced the creation of an independent advisory committee on offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. Thanks to those investments, the CRA now has better data and better approaches for combatting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and it is achieving better results.

Canadians and Quebeckers can be proud that this country now has one of the largest tax treaty networks in the world, with 93 tax treaties and 24 tax information exchange agreements with other nations around the globe.

The CRA also plays a leading role as a member of the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre, a network of close to 40 countries, in which Canada works closely with other tax administrations to coordinate tax compliance activities across the spectrum of international tax risks.

Our collaboration with our international partners is vital for successfully fighting tax evasion. However, only Canada can ratify international agreements. As a signatory to international tax treaties and tax information exchange agreements with other countries, Canada has a key role to play. Like the other provinces and territories, Quebec does not have the same legal means as Canada does to recover money it is owed that is held in other territories.

That means that if a taxpayer decides to transfer their assets to another province or country, Quebec would have neither the legal standing nor the extraterritorial jurisdiction to follow those assets outside Quebec's territory. However, as I mentioned, Canada does have that authority.

For all of these reasons, I invite my colleagues opposite to follow the NDP's lead and reconsider their position on this matter.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although he was using all sorts of diversions throughout much of it.

There were many red herrings in that speech.

When it comes to the question of the government's inability to understand what to do with the public service workers now filling out this redundant second filing of income taxes in Quebec, I wonder why one would not simply reassign those jobs. This could be done most productively, perhaps, in the pursuit of offshore Canadian tax evaders. It could be done long distance, done at a computer. That is what the minister's staff on that assignment are doing now. Why not do this?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to finally see a Conservative member take an interest in cracking down on fiscal evasion and propose to redeploy resources to that end.

That is precisely what we have done in our past three budgets. We hired more than 1,300 auditors to go after those who try to dodge their tax obligations in Canada and who resort to excessive tax avoidance.

However, for 10 years, while the member was here in this House as part of the Harper government, he and his colleagues did not care one iota about combatting tax avoidance. As I mentioned during my speech, former minister Blackburn said that they did not really talk about it and that it was not a priority for the Harper government.

Maybe something positive will come out of this debate: finally, a Conservative member woke up and said that we need to crack down on tax avoidance. It is too little, too late, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I agree with him on certain points.

Since we are talking about Revenue Canada, I am also interested in tax avoidance. I cannot understand how the Liberal government could sign new tax treaties with tax havens. It is making the problem worse.

A few years ago, the Conference Board—not exactly a bunch of leftists—reported that the federal government lost between $9 billion and $49 billion a year because of millionaires and billionaires hiding their money offshore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here at home. The rest of us are paying for that.

I would like to know the number of millionaires and white-collar fraudsters the Liberal government managed to put behind bars. Last time I checked, it was zero.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, information exchange agreements provide useful and necessary information to the CRA, allowing it to identify taxpayers who engage in tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance. That is precisely why such agreements exist with different foreign entities. Prosecuting tax evaders is much more complex than it seems. We need all this information and international co-operation to succeed.

The fact is, since we came into power, we have invested $1 billion in the CRA to ensure it has the necessary resources to catch those who engage in aggressive tax avoidance. That is an ambitious goal, an ambition that was sorely lacking for a decade under Stephen Harper. I encourage my colleague to read an interesting article published recently in La Presse about the CRA. It explains how the CRA is able to hire more auditors and catch more fraudsters thanks to these investments.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Louis-Hébert gave an intelligent and eloquent speech.

In the speeches from the other side of the House, they claim to have Quebec’s interests at heart, but they contradict each other. They forget to mention why there are two tax forms in Quebec. It is not to annoy Quebeckers: it is because Quebec wanted to have a mechanism to pursue special economic and social objectives.

Why does the Conservative Party want to take away this flexibility in Quebec?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words and his question.

On this subject, it should be pointed out that our government is always willing to work with our provincial partners, particularly Quebec. We need to come up with ways to make life easier for Quebeckers and Canadians and to work together better in order to be as effective as possible.

It is really difficult to take everything coming from the other side of the House seriously. For 10 years, Prime Minister Harper, who they keep praising in the House—and I would like Quebeckers to hear this—refused to even meet his provincial counterparts. He did not even attend the Council of the Federation.

We have no lessons to learn from this so-called open federalism, which they trampled on for 10 years.

[Steven MacKinnon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to speak. I have been waiting a long time for the opportunity to take part in a debate that not only concerns a very important issue for Canada, but is also central to our respective visions of the role of government. I am referring here to the role of the Government of Canada, and to the role of government in the daily lives of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I want to talk about this party’s total disregard for our public servants and the modern machinery of government, but first I will talk about the issue at hand, which is tax collection. Obviously, the average Quebecker would like to have to file only one tax return, just like everyone else in the rest of the country, in the nine other provinces and three other territories. There people only have to file one return. However, the Robillard Commission, which was set up by the Government of Quebec not so long ago, pointed out that Quebec taxpayers could save about $400 million by harmonizing with Revenue Canada, which currently enjoys economies of scale across the country.

The Government of Quebec could give $400 million back to its taxpayers while maintaining the social and economic objectives mentioned by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. It would mean keeping an eye on these objectives, while at the same time saving Quebec taxpayers money. This deserves our attention.

We say yes to co-operation and to making life easier for all taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. I note that 85% of taxpayers, when they file their returns, do so electronically. They press a button, and their federal return is sent to Revenue Canada, their provincial return is sent to Revenu Québec, and that is it. That is our perspective on this issue.

I want to talk about the contempt that is expressed every day on the other side of the House for the state, for the Government of Canada. Since this is an election year, I think it is important that all Government of Canada employees, particularly those in the National Capital Region, hear what the Conservative Party is really saying.

My colleagues from the national capital region will be running in an election this year. They will be running against Conservative opponents who are going to promise unicorns and rainbows, but here is what the record says.

What did the Conservative Party leave us? They left us crumbling infrastructure. They left us office buildings with bricks falling off them so that we have to put netting on them. Why? It is because they would not invest, they said, in federal infrastructure, in offices for bureaucrats.

Here is what else the Conservatives left us: The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, their esteemed colleague, left that dreary DRAP program, which yielded what?

Let us talk about job losses. Let us talk about the Phoenix pay system. Let us talk about the order given by Stephen Harper to summarily fire 700 public servants.

They laid off the 700 most experienced compensation specialists without notice and left us with a computer system that could not pay civil servants.

It is not a problem for the Conservatives, since reducing the deficit is the only thing that matters to them.

What about the Government of Canada jobs not only in the national capital region, but across the country and Quebec? Today, we are talking about the 5,500 families that have one member working for the Canada Revenue Agency. I have met people who work for the CRA and for all Canadians in the regions of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Mauricie and Matane, and at the Promenades de l'Outaouais mall in Gatineau. Quebeckers here in Gatineau or Ottawa and in the various regions of Quebec are proud to contribute to shaping this magnificent country. They are proud to do their part to help make Canada the best country in the world.

The cynics across the aisle are telling us that a single tax return is what matters, not jobs in the regions. I was surprised to hear my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord say that.

I asked him what he would do to protect his constituents. First, he said that he believes in his leader, a guy from Regina. Then he told me that the thousands of jobs are just a detail. These jobs are not a detail at all. Yesterday, I met with the president of the Union of Taxation Employees. He does not see these jobs as a detail. He does not see working conditions in Chicoutimi as a detail. The people of Chicoutimi certainly do not see the future of their jobs and the well-being of their families as a detail either.

The members opposite feel contempt for civil servants. They despise the Government of Canada's bureaucracy, infrastructure, employees and computer systems, which are all details for those who belong to the Conservative Party. Earlier, they were patting themselves on the back for having the support of the Bloc Québécois. A proud party, whose leader at the time was among the founding fathers of Canada, is delighted to get the formal support of the Bloc Québécois in the House. I cannot believe my ears.

Not only people in Ottawa and Gatineau but all employees of the Government of Canada need to understand and listen very carefully to what these people talk about when they talk about government programs and the people who deliver them and the ways that we do that work.

In the next election the Conservatives are going to be talking a lot about these things and will never say what their agenda is, but that is what we will be talking about, because we have starkly different visions about the role of the Government of Canada.

We believe that the Government of Canada and the people who serve it are there to serve people, to make people's lives better—and yes, to catch tax cheats all over the world, and yes, to make sure people get across borders safely, and yes, every day to build that infrastructure and those things that help make Canada the number one country in which to live.

The people who serve the Government of Canada in this Chamber will always have our support.

People in the regions of Quebec deserve as much support as people here in the capital, especially from their MPs.

That is why I, like all my colleagues, will tirelessly travel around Quebec and across the country to talk with people, reassure them, and provide them with the tools and infrastructure they need to do the work they are very proud of, namely to serve all Canadians, help us build this country, and make Canada a fairer, more prosperous place. That is the issue at the heart of today's debate.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for Canadians, this is not the first time that members of the Liberal Party have used scare tactics to frighten people by saying that there would be job losses, that this would be the end of the world and that it would be terrible.

We do not need to go back decades. Just a few months ago, in May and June, there was an election in the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Week after week, prominent Liberals came forward to say that the Conservatives were in favour of a single tax return and that this would result in job losses. The people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord spoke. While we finished fourth three years ago, 53% of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord voted for the Conservatives this time.

Enough with Liberal fearmongering. In fact, I must point out to my Liberal colleague that Quebec's former finance minister just responded by saying that he found this unfortunate. He said that he was extremely disappointed because this was something in the public interest of Quebeckers, and that what he really wants is for the two agencies to continue working together. This is a provincial Liberal whose party balanced the budget, unlike the federal Liberal Party.

My question to the member is, why does he want to scare Canadians when they are not fooled by this fearmongering?

[Steven MacKinnon]

Mr. Speaker, I need only repeat what my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said in answer to my question.

Why did he not stand up to his leader about these jobs that would disappear? Why did he not stand up for his thousands of fellow Quebeckers and their families who depend on these jobs, which they do so well? What did that member say? He said it was a detail and that he believed in his leader.

Whoever claims to be speaking on behalf of the regions of Quebec in this debate absolutely must explain what will happen to each and every job if the worst happens, that is, if this party is elected and carries out its plan.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate.

His speech proved that on this subject, only one party is serious, responsible and ready to tackle this issue, to discuss it and to try to find a solution to make things easier for Canadians. On the one side, we have the Conservatives, who would do anything to get rid of 5,000 public service jobs for the sake of their balanced budget ideology. They would jump at an opportunity like this to balance the budget, even if it meant sacrificing families and entire regions whose economies depend on these jobs.

On the other side, we have the Liberals, who are stonewalling. They would not even consider discussing an important issue that would make life easier for Canadians.

Why did my colleague, as a government member and as parliamentary secretary, not do the responsible thing, which is to sit down and try to find a solution to make life easier for Canadians, especially Quebeckers, instead of shooting the idea down completely?

[Steven MacKinnon]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The reason we invested $1 billion in CRA systems and a new call centre is to improve service to the public, to fight tax evasion more effectively and to align our practices with those of our partners, like Revenu Québec.

Our government has proven itself. In fact, just yesterday, we officially announced to the people of the Mauricie region that the future of their tax centre is assured and that a new building will be built to accommodate more public servants.

We are investing and improving services for Canadians, and we will continue to do so.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the parliamentary secretary is using our public service employees as political pawns, fearmongering them into thinking their jobs are at stake. What is at stake is the opportunity for Quebeckers' lives to be made more simple, to make things easier. I am wondering what the parliamentary secretary has against Quebeckers, or is this just another Justin Trudeau mistake?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I call on the hon. member to use either the titles or the riding names of hon. members in his next interventions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Steven MacKinnon]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to the beautiful riding of Gatineau, Quebec, where he can explain to public servants the record of his party. He can explain that dreary DRAP program and the Phoenix pay system it left behind to the Quebeckers who work for the Government of Canada. He can explain to them that he believes that standing up in the chamber and defending the role of the Government of Canada and the work of federal public servants is somehow using them as pawns. He is the one using them as pawns. He is the one showing a total classless lack of respect for the employees of the Government of Canada.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

What I am hearing from the members across the way is unbelievable. The Liberals are out of touch with reality, and they are not working for Quebec. It saddens me.

I would like to remind the House that our political lieutenant for Quebec tabled a motion this morning. I am very proud that the member for Richmond—Arthabaska tabled a motion that is in the interest of Canadians, especially Quebeckers.

We are here to stand up for Quebeckers. We are the Quebec caucus within the national caucus of the Conservative Party of Canada, and our colleagues listen to us very carefully. However, that does not seem to be the case across the aisle. As Conservatives, we work together in the interest of all Canadians, but today in particular, we need to think about the interests of Quebeckers and the single tax return.

I would like to remind the people listening to us at home what topic we have been discussing this morning in the House. As I was saying, my colleague tabled the following motion this morning:

That, given:

(a) the House has great respect for provincial jurisdiction and trust in provincial institutions;

(b) the people of Quebec are burdened with completing and submitting two tax returns, one federal and one provincial; and

(c) the House believes in cutting red tape and reducing unnecessary paperwork to improve the everyday lives of families; therefore,

the House call on the government to work with the Government of Quebec to implement a single tax return in Quebec, as adopted unanimously in the motion of the National Assembly of Quebec on May 15, 2018.

In my view, letting people file a single tax return is the least we could do. I do not understand why the Liberal government are so stubbornly opposed to the idea. Quebeckers are the only people in Canada that have to do twice the work in February, March or April when they file their tax return. I do not understand the motives behind the Liberal government's decision to say no to Quebec, no to Quebeckers and no to a single tax return. That is unacceptable.

What is the basis of that refusal? The Liberals justify it by saying that they want to protect 5,500 jobs in Quebec, meaning the jobs of Canadian public servants working for the Canada Revenue Agency.

Before being elected to the House, I was an entrepreneur. If entrepreneurs in Canada and Quebec acted this way, it would be irresponsible for the future of their companies.

It is 2019, and the technology exists. Can we at least consider the possibility of finding a solution so Quebeckers have less paperwork to fill out? The Liberal government’s position is a categorical no. Why is this centralizing government saying no to Quebec? To protect jobs.

The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the leader of the official opposition in the House of Commons, has very clearly said that no jobs would be lost. It must be said that we have a better record of keeping our word than the Liberals do. When the Liberals say things and make promises, we have our doubts, because they have a long list of broken promises.

However, when our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, formed the government, we kept our promises, whereas the current government has caused a mess over the last three years. Our “score” is almost 100%, which is excellent.

What is important to understand is that we must undertake a reflection. Personally, I think that the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, and I am not talking about Ali Baba and his 40 thieves, should be realistic and fair. They should have the trust and willpower to get things done. They should respect Quebeckers.

It is acceptable for the GST. Revenu Québec can collect the GST and remit it to Ottawa, but maybe the Liberals see Quebeckers as second-class citizens when it comes to filing tax returns. The Liberals have not even considered the possibility of finding a solution and studying the feasibility of a single tax return. Is that trust? I do not think so.

We need to be realistic. As I mentioned earlier, there is reality. It is 2019, and the technology exists. We can reduce the paperwork today. It is a matter of putting numbers in columns, but the exercise must be multiplied by two and by the number of residents of Quebec. How many additional returns is that?

Where there is a will to make things better, there is a way. Where there is no will, excuses will certainly be found. Scare tactics will be used. We need to be realistic. Being realistic means looking at the system that exists now and considering the feasibility of the issue. However, the Liberals' answer is a categorical no, and they refuse to commit.

Why ask twice the effort from Quebeckers in the name of fairness? Quebec is the only province to complete two income tax returns. To be fair, will the Liberal government announce a tax credit in its next budget for Quebeckers who are required to pay an accountant twice as much because they file two tax returns? Maybe we will have a surprise in March when the Minister of Finance tables his budget. If we follow the government’s reasoning regarding fairness, there should be compensation for Quebeckers.

What is lacking is political will. The minister is hiding behind the argument of lost jobs. I repeat, as our leader mentioned, that no jobs will be lost. I asked the Prime Minister a question last week. We were discussing the income tax return and the reason why he was saying no to Quebeckers. I will read his answer to my question in the House. I do not know what planet he was on, but he replied, “Mr. Speaker, how interesting. The Conservatives are saying one thing in French and another in English.”

I do not know if he was talking about the Liberals. We Conservatives are saying only one thing.

I can speak English and French.

We will work for Quebec and to meet the needs of Quebeckers. Quebec has a labour shortage. More than 1,000 positions are vacant according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We will continue to work with Quebec on its files.

Here in the House last Wednesday, the Prime Minister himself said that there was a labour shortage. The Minister of National Revenue says she wants no lost jobs. I have quite a few ideas for her to consider. Take employees and send them to work on tax evasion. For three years, the Liberals have invested millions of dollars without any results.

Why not use that expertise? Public servants are skilled workers. We will respect Canadian public servants, and we will ensure that they are paid, which is very important. At the very least, public servants need to be paid by the government for the services they provide.

I am getting carried away. I should return to my notes. Speaking of the Minister of National Revenue, a few months ago, she developed a new slogan, “the net is tightening”. Last week it became, “Chop, chop, chop”. This is not the theatre; this is the House of Commons. This is serious. Quebeckers deserve our respect. This is unacceptable behaviour on the part of a minister. It is as if she were on a stage. She is putting on a play. It is unacceptable as well as irresponsible.

I do not understand how this Liberal government can say no to Quebeckers and no to a single income tax return.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Speaking of theatre, Mr. Speaker, I think what we have just witnessed is an excellent example of play-acting. It even ends up being believable. However, the ones who do not believe it are Quebeckers, because they saw the Conservatives play that movie so often. They come to Quebec all smiles to show openness just before an election, but after the elections, they only say no to Quebec.

Let us not forget when two unilingual anglophone judges were appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada by Stephen Harper, whom my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier admires so much. Let us not forget the appointment of unilingual anglophone officers of Parliament and the destruction of data from the gun registry. Let us also not forget how my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière and the whole bunch from Quebec were decked out in their stylish Nordiques jerseys just before the federal government decided not to fund the Quebec amphitheatre at the time.

Now, we hear them say that they will protect these 5,500 jobs and that these are just details to be sorted out at a later date. However, they are not details for the 5,500 families who depend on these jobs.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite impressive to hear my colleague from Louis-Hébert say that the Conservatives are not to be believed.

As for the amphitheatre, it was Mr. Harper who said no. He stood firm in the interest of protecting taxpayer dollars. There was a principle and guidelines and he followed those rules. Unfortunately for Quebeckers, there was no investment, but Mr. Harper was fair, just, honest and loyal.

How can this member stand and tell us that we do not keep our word? What has he done since June 30, 2016, when he asked voters in Louis-Hébert to vote for him by promising to have the Quebec Bridge painted? It is 2019 and the Quebec Bridge has yet to see a drop of paint, so he cannot lecture anyone.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone who cannot lecture anyone about painting the Quebec Bridge, it is certainly a Conservative member who did nothing for 10 years, especially after the Quebec NDP members pressured him to do so. The Conservatives never did anything when they had the chance.

Today, they are talking a good game as though this were important to them, but their actions speak volumes. In fact, as actions speak louder than words, I had the opportunity to table an amendment to include respect for workers and the protection of federal public servants in the motion. It was an extremely simple amendment that pretty much said the same thing the Conservatives are saying, but obviously, they have no intention of walking the talk, since the sponsor of the motion, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, rejected my amendment.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to add a simple clause to protect jobs? When a party says something but refuses to put it in writing, they show their true colours.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is completely wrong about the Quebec Bridge.

The Conservative government of the day put $75 million on the table, the Government of Quebec put $23.5 million on the table, the City of Quebec put $1.5 million on the table and the City of Lévis put $500,000 on the table. The latter two were talking at the time, so we took action. We did not find a solution, but we never made a promise with a deadline. We will take no lessons from the NDP.

Speaking of lessons, the NDP introduced an amendment today. The New Democrats are all over the map. Sometimes they say yes and sometimes they say no. Sometimes they are in favour of a single tax return and sometimes they are not. Today, we are debating a principle. We are not trying to make political hay like the NDP. We are taking care of Quebeckers. The motion that we moved this morning was very clear and we will debate it until the end of the day.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, in 2004, Yves Séguin, then the Quebec finance minister, called for a single tax return. In 2008, the Bloc Québécois took up that call on behalf of Quebeckers. Fourteen and a half years have passed since then, four and a half under a Liberal government and 10 under a Conservative one.

Why should we now believe the Conservatives and their call for a single tax return?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admire my colleague and I thank her for her question.

We cannot change the past; we can only change the future. We must not look backward; we must look forward. Maurice Duplessis' provincial government asked for this, and the matter could have been settled then. Now it is 2019. We are standing up and we are saying yes to Quebeckers because Quebec's National Assembly recently adopted a motion. We are here to serve Canadians and Quebeckers.