Debates of Feb. 5th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Single tax return in Quebec

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only did we do our homework, but we also listened to Quebeckers and went to meet with them.

Unlike the NDP, we have not changed our minds three times. We looked at both sides. We met with everyone. We travelled across Quebec with our leader. It is easy for the NDP to say that the Conservatives are this or that. You have changed your minds three times. We know that you did this because the unions told you to. Otherwise, you would have been the first to vote for this.

Everyone needs to be involved in the discussion. With a bill like this, Quebec needs to be involved, and everyone here needs to be part of the discussion. We will do this, because this is what we have always done. When we move motions and introduce bills, we sit down with people to talk about them. That is how we show respect for democracy and for the Premier of Quebec.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I assure the member that I have not changed my mind. I am sure she was talking about the member for Sherbrooke.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an emotional day this has been. It is a day when Quebec is in the spotlight, and that comes with a lot of emotion.

I would like to calm things down a bit and get back to the facts. We are here today debating a motion moved by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. This motion was not drafted just for fun. It was tabled following some very real events for us.

First, as my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix said, we remember Stephen Harper. My colleagues opposite love to try to destroy what he did, but he did one important thing for Quebeckers in 2006, which was to get the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation.

Over the past year and a half, we have been wondering what Quebeckers now expect from a motion like that one. My 10 Conservative colleagues from Quebec and I have toured Quebec. We went everywhere, all the way to northern Abitibi and to the North Shore. We went to listen to Quebeckers. We told them that we recognized Quebec as a nation in 2006 and that we wanted to know what that meant for them now. The tax return issue was one of the major points that kept coming up.

Again, this is not about emotion, but about administration. It is about paperwork. There is nothing emotional about that. The emotion that we are feeling is only anger at having to fill out tax returns.

When we came back from our tour, we thought that it was clear. We did not invent anything. We just listened to Quebeckers. Around the same time, the Quebec National Assembly decided to turn it into a unanimous resolution, adopted by all members of the National Assembly, regardless of party. Members on the left and right all said that they wanted this. Again, this is rational. Let us take a deep breath.

By listening to Quebeckers, our leader, who is very interested in learning what Quebec really wants, said that as prime minister, he would ensure that the Conservative government negotiates with Quebec and finds a way to do it. It is still a matter of administration.

The motion moved by my colleague today seeks to create a relationship of trust with the provinces, to listen to our provinces so that we can work well with them. We are prepared to say that we will work effectively with the Government of Quebec on establishing guidelines for administering a single tax return.

What is so emotional about all of this?

It is simple. We are being asked about jobs. Of course there are challenges any time a measure is introduced. Any measure or any important political decision will always involve considerations related to jobs, expenditures and revenues, depending on what is being done. That is to be expected.

The basic principle that is driving us today, the purpose of our motion, is the fact that there are 8 million Quebeckers. That is a lot of people, one-quarter of Canada's population, who have to fill out two tax returns. We merely want to simplify things. We will manage the impact that this will have on jobs. We will figure out how to handle it. The leader of the Conservative Party has already said that we would manage the situation appropriately. Some federal employees may be assigned to different tasks or have to deal with restructuring. That is for sure. Such a big decision is bound to have consequences. However, we are all aware of that and we want those people to keep their jobs.

How will it work? That remains to be seen.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I can hear the New Democrats shouting, but does anyone really believe that, deep down, we would want to make a decision like that to eliminate jobs? Come on. That is why today's debate has become so emotionally charged. That is why members are trying to attack us, to the turn the debate around and make it political. I cannot count on the NDP because it has changed its mind two or three times. Can I count on the Liberal government and the Prime Minister who refuse every time Quebec asks for something?

We all remember Premier Couillard. Quebec drafted a document to reopen certain constitutional issues. It was very complex work. Mr. Couillard very calmly and dispassionately said he would just like to talk about the issues. The Prime Minister looked at reporters and said he had no intention of talking. That is how this government operates: emotionally. Reactions like that from the Prime Minister and his government drive me up the wall. I cannot stand seeing 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec not give a damn about what Quebeckers think. As I Quebecker, I just do not get it. If they want me to get mad, I will get mad. Every time a Quebec issue comes up, the government reacts negatively.

I am just asking members of the House to be open to discussion. There are steps that need to be taken, of course, and there are ways to do that if we behave like grown men and women, but that is not at all what I have seen today.

Let us look at the answers given by Quebec premiers. Obviously, Mr. Couillard supported the motion. The National Assembly motion was passed by the provincial Liberals of the day. Now the CAQ and Premier Legault are in power, and it is the same thing, of course. Our motion builds on the work already begun in response to Quebec's demands. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly know Quebeckers better than anyone. We went out to listen to Quebeckers first-hand, and so we are in a position to confirm Quebec's wishes.

It is also important to point out that all members of the Conservative Party support this initiative. It is not only the 11 members from Quebec who are rising to speak to this matter. The entire Conservative caucus supports this initiative to help Quebeckers. At the Conservative Party convention in Halifax last August, the 3,000 delegates in attendance voted over 99% in favour of the motion for a single tax return in Quebec.

Let us stop being emotional and let us be rational. Jobs are important, but we can manage the situation and, basically, there are eight million Quebeckers who are expecting not to have to fill out two tax returns any more, just like all other Canadians, who only file one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. Across the way we have a party that wants to cause upheaval and disruptions that affect real people, individuals and their families, and create uncertainty and anxiety. What is their end game?

As the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges said, thanks to technology, Quebeckers can file their tax returns with software that does all the work. It is not like it used to be when we had to fill out two returns with a pencil and flip through one pile of paper to another.

Why does the party across the way want to cause upheaval to end up getting what we are already equipped to do, in other words, use software to do our taxes?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for the question. I would simply say that we listened to Quebeckers. Maybe that does not happen in his riding or maybe the people there do not talk about it, but people across Quebec were unanimous.

We truly listened to Quebeckers. We did not get into unnecessary consultations. We held round tables and people were unanimous. What is more, the National Assembly held two votes on this, once under the previous government and once under the current government. If my colleague consulted his constituent and asked them the question, he would get the same response.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I cannot help but draw a comparison between the new Conservative and new wine. Often, the packaging is attractive. As for taste, I will let everyone make up their own mind, but I will just say that mine is pretty much set. Let us go back to the facts; when I hear my colleague talk about this co-operation that we should have, I wonder why we cannot achieve it.

Since the beginning of this conversation today, we have heard the Conservatives tell us ad nauseam that there will not be any job losses. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable repeated it at least 15 times. However, the Conservatives rejected our amendment to specifically add that to the motion they introduced.

Can they not include in their motion that we will implement this idea while guaranteeing no job losses? Why do they not agree to put in writing what they have been telling us in the House right from the start?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

The NDP agreed that Quebec should have a single tax return. Unfortunately, under pressure from the unions, the leader of the NDP decided to change his mind and refuse this request. We cannot play that game. Our position is clear. We know where we are going, we know what we want, and we know what Quebeckers want. Our Conservative colleagues agree.

I cannot change everything I have to do here because the NDP has internal communication problems about its position. I cannot ask my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska to change his motion because the leader of the NDP has a position opposite of that of the NDP members from Quebec.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a proposal that would benefit all Quebeckers. We have repeated ad nauseam that Quebec's National Assembly reached a unanimous consensus. There are 78 Quebec MPs from all parties, who represent voters of every stripe and from every walk of life. In the last election, they voted in favour of a proposal to file a single tax return.

Maybe my colleague could help me with something I am wondering about. How can certain parties, especially the Liberal Party and the NDP, not be willing to uphold the unanimous consensus of our voters and our provincial counterparts in Quebec City?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

That is exactly what I was saying earlier. We did the work on the ground. We met with people across Quebec. The 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec are missing in action. Their excessive, negative reactions today prove that they are completely out of touch with the reality of Quebeckers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Justice; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Asbestos.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière. She is very familiar with this issue and is very involved in finding practical solutions for the people of her region, for workers, but also for all Quebec taxpayers.

We are having a very interesting discussion today, because we are seeing some rather extreme and sweeping positions. It smacks of improvisation, while in the NDP, we have a clear position, but it is nuanced because it is well thought out and because we have worked on the issue. We did not just toss a balloon into the air to see whether it would fly.

Let me recap. The last federal NDP convention in Montreal was attended by 3,000 delegates from across the country. Part of the discussions and resolutions considered during the convention dealt with the single tax return. This resolution, which came from Quebec, of course, had two parts. The first was to recognize that it is somewhat incongruous for Quebeckers to be the only taxpayers in the country who have to file two tax returns, while all the others in the federation file only one. Is having a single tax return for Quebec a good idea? A vast majority of the delegates supported the resolution and its principle. It certainly would make people’s lives easier.

There is a second part to this resolution, which is that we must avoid shooting ourselves in the foot as we attempt to help each other out. We want to make this change, but we do not want to hurt people by doing so. More than 5,000 people in Quebec work for the Canada Revenue Agency. They process the tax returns not just of Quebeckers, but also of people from other provinces. They also perform other tasks related to the tax activities of taxpayers across the country.

The NDP's resolution is very clear. The NDP supports the idea of a single tax return, but that approach would need to be implemented in a way that respects workers and ensures that they keep their jobs. We are talking about good jobs and people who are working in the regions, mainly in Mauricie. My colleague from Trois-Rivières is obviously very aware of that. Some of those workers are also located in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area.

We adopted the resolution and then we got to work. We went and met with the representatives of the employees who work in this field day after day and year after year. We asked them if it would be possible to come up with a plan to reassign people to different tasks, to additional or different activities. When one starts looking at the details, it is more complicated than it seems for various reasons.

There is a lot of seasonal work and student jobs. There are people who process tax returns for a living but who could not necessarily be reassigned to technical or specialized tasks related to the fight against tax havens or tax evasion. The NDP supports the fight against tax evasion. We are not against it, quite the contrary. That was our pet cause in the Quebec caucus throughout 2017. However, it is not true that someone who does a certain job can be transferred to a completely different one the next day. That is rather unrealistic.

The leader of the Conservative Party is saying that it is simple and that those who are working on tax returns today can be transferred to work on tax evasion tomorrow. This is proof that the Conservatives did not do their homework, that they did not talk to people on the ground, that they did not look into what is actually possible.

[An hon. member]

They are amateurs.

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

It is indeed amateur hour, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned improvisation earlier but this is completely amateurish. I was really shocked to hear the Conservative member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord this morning. Following his speech, he was asked how he would ensure that there would be no job losses and what exactly these people would do for work. The member replied that these were details. We are talking about the lives of 5,000 people and decent incomes for these families and for the regions.

With those jobs comes a great deal of economic development, not to mention increased purchasing power in regions with many SMEs, including restaurants and other businesses.

We need to take a serious approach. We have to approach the task as professionally as possible, and that is exactly what the NDP has done, by holding several meetings. We have done things reasonably and diligently, as we must when we respect people. We respect workers. From the outset, we said that this was what we wanted to do.

The principle is good, attractive even, and easy to understand. However, there are significant regional and socio-economic impacts for families. We are being told that the NDP members are not listening to the people of Quebec. However, the 5,500 workers are 5,500 Quebeckers we sat with and listened to. I will claim loudly and proudly that my Quebec definitely includes the FTQ, which represents 600,000 people. It is the largest civil society organization in Quebec right now. These are people with whom we have a relationship and with whom we can sit down to see what practical solutions we can come up with. That is what we have done and what, unfortunately, other political parties, such as the Conservatives, have not.

They are so unwilling to truly commit themselves that I want to remind everyone about what happened this morning. The member for Sherbrooke said that the Conservative motion as drafted contained certain potentially interesting elements, but that it was missing one big thing. That big thing is the second component of the resolution adopted at the NDP convention, namely a guarantee that these people will not suffer or lose their jobs in the regions.

The member for Sherbrooke therefore presented a very simple amendment saying that the implementation of the single tax return must not result in a loss of employment within the public service. Shockingly, this amendment was rejected. The Conservative Party turned it down, even though the Conservative members said over and over, in all of their speeches and questions today in the House, that no jobs would be lost. When the time came to put it in writing, however, they said no. They said that it was a mere detail and that they would think about how to do this.

We cannot trust a party that spent 10 years slashing public services and cutting social programs when they were in government under Stephen Harper. We cannot trust them or tell them that the details will be taken care of later. That is not how things work.

We might one day be open to a plan for a single tax return if it did not involve job losses and if services were being provided to the public and were perhaps improved. That is what we are saying. It is not complicated.

We can find ways to make life easier for people. In many countries, tax returns are filled out in advance. People must check to make sure that their income and deductions match, since tax returns are relatively simple for a large number of people who have a set salary. A number of OECD countries operate like this, and we could consider this solution or possibility as a way to make things easier for Quebeckers and Canadians.

However, that is not on the table for right now. I think it is unfortunate that political parties are so quick to get carried away with rhetoric and theatrics. This is easy to do when members are not out there themselves, looking into these things.

It would be a good idea to put more effort and energy into fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. However, the Liberal government must first take this seriously and invest the necessary resources. Since coming to power, the Liberals have not convicted any millionaires for hiding millions in the Cayman Islands or Barbados. The Liberals have no credibility. They have signed new agreements with tax havens.

If they want to tackle tax evasion, we will support them. However, they have not yet done so. Neither did the Conservatives for 10 years. Neither of these parties have any credibility in this file.

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

Mr. Speaker, I surprise myself, but I have to admit that I agree with the hon. member across the way.

It is easy to say that we will merge structures and that it will be as easy as pie, but it is never like that in reality. The Conservatives' plan seems to have been scribbled down on a napkin in the opposition lobby during a brainstorming session on how to get more votes in Quebec.

It is very hard to merge structures. In the private sector, such attempts often fail. It can be even harder in the public sector. Often, there are two pay scales, and there needs to be agreement on which one to choose. There is always a group that is unhappy with the results and decides to leave. Then we end up short-staffed on the administration side, which can affect the service being provided. When dealing with taxes, we cannot afford to have inadequate service. That can lead to total economic chaos.

I agree with the hon. member. My question is rather simple and I asked it earlier. We all have access to software to fill out a single form and insert data into a computer. We can print two returns and send one to the province and one to the federal government.

What do we have to gain under this plan? I do not get it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague.

I look back fondly on the work we did together on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, but that is a whole other story.

I think this shows the NDP's prudent and responsible approach towards thousands of people, their families and regional economies.

I really like the more specific point he raises about all the software that is widely available. Once a person completes their tax return on the computer, which they only have to do once, they can file two copies electronically, by email. Many people already do their taxes that way. My office offers a tax filing workshop to my riding's least fortunate residents. I volunteer for that workshop, along with other people and my staff. That is the method we use to help people who have trouble reading and need a hand with filing taxes.

I think that is a fairly simple example that demonstrates that the technology is more advanced than certain political claims taken from a focus group.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech and for reminding us of the NDP's responsible approach to this issue.

Compared to the Conservatives' approach of jumping on any opportunity to cut the public service, and the Liberals' approach of shutting the door and refusing to find solutions with those involved, the NDP's approach is responsible.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts and put this into perspective.

A total of 5,500 jobs represents a lot of people. This will also have a significant impact on the economy. Our thoughts are with the families in Oshawa affected by job losses there. The Oshawa community is losing 2,600 jobs.

Could my colleague tell us what these 5,500 jobs—more than double that other number—represent to communities like Jonquière and Shawinigan? All members agree that that was bad news out of Oshawa. Would it also be bad news for the regions of Jonquière and Shawinigan if the Conservatives were to do as planned and implement their austerity 2.0 plan overnight and cut 5,500 jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for his excellent question.

Let us remember that workers are the foundation of the NDP. We are the party of labour. We are also the party of public services. We will always take great care to respect people and provide them with the best jobs possible, and not cause them to lose their jobs. That is what is most important.

That is why we are fighting for auto sector workers. That is why we are fighting for Davie shipyard and to get back the hundreds of jobs that were lost. That is why we rise in the House to defend workers in the aluminum and forestry sectors. That is why we are in politics. Our colleagues introduce bills to protect workers' pensions so the money is not stolen as was the case with Sears workers. That is why we are here and we are proud of it.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a tax centre in my riding of Jonquière since 1983. More than 1,000 people currently work at this centre. There are full-time and temporary workers. We must remember that the majority of these people are the breadwinners in their families.

I would like to thank all my colleagues from the Quebec NDP caucus. We worked together and did excellent research to support the resolution adopted at our last convention. Our objective was to determine, following discussions with unions and workers, whether a single tax return could be introduced without causing job losses. The idea itself may be commendable, because people in other provinces file a single tax return.

The most difficult task was determining what would happen to the 5,500 people working in Jonquière, Shawinigan or the tax services office in Chicoutimi if a single tax return were implemented. That is a considerable number of jobs. The NDP was the first party to consider the future of the workers. It is an important issue that affects many people.

It is all well and good to throw out ideas and proposals. We are people with strong opinions, which is commendable, but we need to do the research and meet with the people who will be affected so that we can understand the importance of their work and what they do. In this specific case, we would have to visit the Jonquière Tax Centre, which I have visited three times, or the tax services office in Chicoutimi, which I have also been to several times. That is why the NDP reconsidered this idea. When we put the workers first, we hit a wall. What will happen to their jobs?

I will come back to Jonquière, which is home to 1,000 employees. These are men and women with families to support. Furthermore, these people keep our economy going. The jobs in Jonquière, including all salary levels, represent a total payroll of $40 million for the Saguenay region. That is quite a lot of money.

In my region, we always want to foster development, offer good working conditions and create high-quality jobs. There are problems with housing. People are having trouble finding a place to live. The solution to this problem involves providing good jobs, like the jobs at the Jonquière Tax Centre and the Shawinigan National Verification and Collections Centre. These jobs help improve families' quality of life.

This proposal is creating concern among the workers. I have had a chance to follow the debates today, especially the comments made by Conservative members. They do not appear to be very concerned about these hard-working people. It is true that no one likes paying taxes. However, when we see the quality of the service provided, especially in Quebec, we understand that the successful growth of our beautiful country and, if I may say so myself, my beautiful province depends on this common good and our collective strength. At no point today did I hear the Conservatives show any regard for the workers' concerns. I want to emphasize that, because the Conservatives have been calling us every name in the book all day long.

I met a father of four on Sunday. He told me he is the main breadwinner and that he is worried and very anxious. With the election approaching, people are wondering if politicians will care about them. That is what he told me. He has worked at the Jonquière tax centre for 15 years, and he is wondering if he will still have work next year or two years from now. What is going to happen to him?

Today's motion is not making people feel optimistic. There is no real plan, no proposal for working together, and that worries people.

As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to care about people. We have had many debates in the House of Commons. Earlier, a member talked about GM workers in Oshawa who have good jobs. The same holds true for workers in Quebec.

I am especially concerned for working families in my riding, Jonquière. I just mentioned the father I met with. He is worried. Hundreds of people are worried too. I hope everyone will listen to reason, and I hope the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will eventually do the same work we did.

It is easy to say that no jobs will be lost and to repeat it 10, 15 or 20 times. It does not bode well if we cannot even put it in writing that workers have to be protected and that no loss of employment within the federal public service should occur, as my colleague for Sherbrooke asked for in his amendment this morning.

At some point, we have to walk the talk. Action must be taken. It is important. I will not hesitate to sign a document if I am truly and deeply convinced that it is the right thing to do.

The rejection of the amendment moved earlier today by my colleague for Sherbrooke to ensure that there would be no loss of employment for workers in Quebec, including in the tax centre in Jonquière, was a good example of that. Clearly, it does not make any sense.

Again, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. I believe we should review our tax system and improve the way we do things. There is a lot to do for SMEs. There is a lot of room for improvement. We still have a whole world to build. We have our entire future ahead of us.

It would be nice if Conservatives understood the importance of caring about workers. Words are not enough. We need action. We need a plan. As I was saying, the important thing is to work together and try to move in the direction Quebec wants, to communicate with the province and see where things can be improved. Opportunities do exist. One thing I can say for sure is that, as the member for Jonquière, I will always stand up for workers and defend their interests in the House and in my riding. Most importantly, I will make sure their jobs are protected.

I hope that the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and everyone in the House will listen to reason. We must make sure that no job is lost and that we are able to look for solutions. Partisanship is not the way to go. We cannot go into an election campaign making promises that we know we will not be able to keep. In particular, we must not try to balance the budget by cutting 5,500 jobs in Quebec. Even though that is a lot of jobs, it will not be enough for the Conservatives to balance the budget, and I do not want that to be done on the backs of workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a great deal of the debate today. Often debates such as this are very emotional.

I want to emphasize one of the underlying themes to which the members have referenced, and that is the workers. We should recognize that the Canada Revenue Agency employs thousands of people in the province of Quebec. It even goes beyond that province. These are professional civil servants who have done an outstanding job in providing top-quality service standards to all regions of the country, but in particular in the province of Quebec, which we are talking about today. There is an actual impact.

Does the member believe, as I do, that the Conservative Party has really underestimated the importance of those CRA jobs and the quality of the work employees perform for the people of Quebec, in fact all Canadians, either directly or indirectly?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. We have had plenty of debates in the House, and I must admit that I agree with him to some extent, which is rare.

As we have seen today, some members are taking the job losses too lightly. They say it is no big deal. On the contrary, we need to take that very seriously. Any responsible party would have a very clear plan and know the right way to do things. As parliamentarians, it is not enough for us to simply make proposals. We need to do our homework and consult people on the ground, particularly the workers at the Jonquière and Shawinigan tax data centres. It is important to go there and see the kind of work they do. We can do more.

The government says not to worry, that it is going to dedicate all its resources to combatting tax havens. That is a great idea. We need to come up with programs for doing that, but we also need to put a structure in place. That requires training. Accountants are the ones who do that. Different methods are used to handle data on individuals and corporations, so different skills and training are required.

We need to think about improving services, particularly in Quebec, because that is a major problem. Many people come to see us because the Conservatives made so many cuts to public services. There is a way to continue to improve services, but we need to think about Quebec and those 5,500 jobs before saying any old thing.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with my friend from Winnipeg, but I do today. The tone with which the hon. member for Jonquière has defended her community and the jobs there and the way she has been constructive in her suggestions is really admirable. She is fighting for jobs in her community in the same way the member for Oshawa fought for jobs in his. However, this time the shoe seems to be on the other foot.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the Bloc and the Conservatives are doing this today.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is clear that they did not do their homework. It is true that it is important for parliamentarians to communicate with the Quebec National Assembly. However, we sometimes need to take a step back.

As federal parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to do our job. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, who are pushing to implement this approach at any price, rejected the amendment that my colleague from Sherbrooke proposed today to try to ensure that there would not be any job losses. Their answer was a resounding no.

That clearly shows that they have not given any thought to what will happen next. They are not prepared. A party cannot just propose ideas without looking into the specifics. They need to come well prepared. It is disappointing to see two parties here in the House of Commons fearmongering. The 5,500 workers are worried, particularly those in my riding of Jonquière. They are worried that the tax centre will shut down. Those are good jobs, and I will do everything in my power to fight for those jobs and keep them in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise at the end of this debate to conclude what was quite an eventful day. We were able to get to the bottom of the issue and determine who are the fearmongers in this House.

The question before us is, will Quebeckers keep filing two tax returns? The official opposition believes that it is not a good idea and that Quebeckers should file a single tax return. That is simple common sense. It is all about making life easier for Quebeckers, making sure that they are no longer the only Canadians filing two tax returns, and implementing that change without any loss of employment.

Similar agreements already exist. Since 2011, there has been an excellent agreement in place that is based on the same principle, namely that the Government of Quebec collects the GST and delivers it directly to the federal government with not a single penny missing.

That is what is being proposed here, to allow Quebeckers to file a single tax return like all other Canadians, along the lines of what is already being done with the GST, without sacrificing any jobs.

Why are Quebeckers the only people in this country who have to submit two income tax returns?

Back on February 24, 1954, in what was then known as the legislative assembly, Premier Maurice Duplessis passed a bill to create an income tax return for the province of Quebec.

Some may wonder why he did that.

War being what it is, urgent measures were needed, and the Canadian government appropriated certain taxation powers. After the war, things should have gone back to the way they had been, but that did not happen. The Right Honourable Louis Saint-Laurent—although I do not know the man, I say his name every day as the MP for the riding that bears it—recognized that Quebec had the right and the power to create its own income tax return.

Historians agree that, in the 1960s, Quebec's taxation power made it possible for the Hon. Jean Lesage's government to introduce all its new measures during a period later known to many as the Quiet Revolution.

Over the years, the issue has surfaced a few times at the provincial and federal levels. We wondered if it might be a good idea for Quebeckers to be able to file a single tax return, just like every other Canadian. The issue came up occasionally at the federal level, and the least we can say is that there was not much interest in the proposal. The issue was brought up in Quebec on a few occasions, if I recall correctly, by a federalist party. A party that wanted Quebec to remain in Canada proposed a single tax return in 1988. That was Action démocratique du Québec, a party that I obviously know very well.

This idea surfaced year in and year out, but not in a very concrete or well-formed way, and it was not very realistic or doable. With all due respect to those involved, it takes two to tango. There had to be a proponent in Quebec and a proponent in Ottawa. As there was not much enthusiasm for this initiative in Ottawa, there was not a lot of dancing going on.

Things just stumbled along. Just over a year later, we Conservatives floated the idea again during a meeting that we had with our leader, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and leader of the official opposition. Like many Canadians, he knew that Quebeckers were the only ones to file two tax returns. He wondered if there was a way to change that. That is when we the Conservative members from Quebec did our homework to see whether there was any interest in this and whether it could be actually done.

We started the process. We debated the idea within the party. There were consultations across Quebec. There were results after the first phase, because this does not happen overnight. The first phase was done on May 12, 2018, when our party adopted the resolution during our provincial convention. All federal Conservative Party members were gathered in Saint-Hyacinthe. Nearly 500 people were there. No one will remember that the former leader of the Bloc Québécois decided to rejoin our party. No one will remember that the current mayor of Trois-Rivières decided to join our party. Many will remember that the convention was a resounding success.

It was at that time—without wanting to dwell too much on local party matters—that Charles Plamondon, the Conservative Party riding association president for Louis-Saint-Laurent, took the microphone and we put this matter to a vote. It passed with a very clear majority of over 90% by our provincial authorities.

I would like to salute Charles Plamondon, who was our riding association president for two years. I also want to salute all the volunteers for all political parties who contribute to the democratic process in a positive and constructive way, without any pay, simply for the pleasure of standing up for their convictions. There are no wrong convictions, just people who are driven by political passions and their convictions. We can only congratulate them and thank them through Charles Plamondon, whom I salute and thank.

On May 12, the provincial wing of the Conservative Party voted in favour of a single tax return. A few days later, and the timeline is important here, the Quebec National Assembly adopted its motion. Throughout the debate today, we have heard that we support the National Assembly when it suits us and that we are following the lead of provincial parties. This is not the case. As the chronology shows, we made this decision on our own. This will have a significant political impact in Quebec, since we will be governing Canada in nine months, if that is what Canadians choose. I think we represent a serious challenge and that this is a real possibility. We want Canadians to support our party, but the decision will be theirs on October 21.

A major national party took a concrete position that is good for Quebeckers, and the National Assembly could not ignore that. All members of the National Assembly supported this motion, including members from the far left, such as members of Québec Solidaire, entrenched sovereignists, like members of the Parti Québécois, people who were, at the time, members of the second opposition party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, and even well-known federalists, like the provincial Liberals. Everyone agreed. I will come back to this later, because as I said, some mind-boggling things have been said here today. I look forward to expanding on this.

To summarize, the leader initiated the discussion within our party, the provincial wing of the Conservative Party adopted the motion, and all of the political parties in the Quebec National Assembly agreed with it. Then, a few weeks later, the day after Quebec's national holiday, in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, the Conservative leader announced that a government led by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle would ensure that Quebeckers only had to fill out a single tax return like all other Canadians.

There was support for this stance. It is important to point that out because people have been talking a lot of rubbish today. Even during question period, the Prime Minister said that it was strange that we were not asking any questions in English about the single tax form, which is not true. Last week, our colleague from Calgary asked a question in English in this regard. The cameras do not show the members who are not speaking, but Canadians should have seen how shocked the Liberal ministers were to hear a question in English on this subject. I do not know how they do things in the Liberal Party, but we conservatives always say the same thing in both official languages, whether in eastern Canada, western Canada, Quebec, Ontario or northern Canada.

The Conservative Party agrees. The vote held at a convention of over 3,000 people was almost unanimous. We debated this issue amongst ourselves, and we worked hard on this realistic and responsible proposal for Quebeckers.

In short, what is our objective? Of course, our priority is the taxpayer. Our main objective is to help 8 million Quebeckers who have been forced for too long to file two tax returns—even if they do not all file a return of course—while other Canadians file only one. We want to make their life easier. Let us not forget that this would not cost taxpayers a dime and that it can be done through an administrative agreement like so many others between the federal government and all provinces.

It is important to mention that, according to some, we are again trying to pander to Quebec. That is not true. Only Quebec has this problem. Only Quebeckers must file two income tax returns. We are not doing it to please Quebeckers, but to make life easier for them. That is the important thing. When I say "Quebeckers", I mean all workers in Quebec, including those who work in the federal public service and for the Canada Revenue Agency.

Therefore, it would be an administrative agreement like many others. The sovereignty of the Parliament of Canada would not be affected in any way and Parliament would continue to duly vote on all legislation and all budgetary and fiscal measures. For all regulations, laws, measures, paragraphs and forms that the government wants to pass or complete, the authority sits entirely with the elected members of the House of Commons. The Government of Quebec has nothing to do with federal taxation, and Ottawa has nothing to do with provincial taxation. That is what respecting jurisdictions is all about, and that is what we have always tried to do and have always done as Conservatives. All laws and regulations are passed in Ottawa.

People may have legitimate concerns and might think the province would be given taxation powers. That is not what would happen. Taxation power remains fully within the purview of the House of Commons and the federal government. However, it would be administered by the provincial government. That has been the case for the GST since 2011. That is important. We are talking billions of dollars transferred from the Government of Quebec to the federal government every month. The Government of Quebec collects the GST on behalf of the federal government and sends it straight here to Ottawa. It works, and it works well. It is much more efficient for businesses. It makes people's work easier, and that is a good thing. We know it is working because nobody realizes it or talks about it. That is the best evidence that it is working.

I would note that the agreement was signed in 2011 under former Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who is well known and well liked here in the House of Commons because of his outstanding service during the good years from 1984 to 1998. Mr. Charest and Mr. Harper worked together to make the GST arrangement happen.

Since then, there was a federalist Liberal government under Jean Charest and everything worked out. Then there was a minority sovereignist government under Pauline Marois and everything worked out. After that, there was another federalist Liberal government under Philippe Couillard and everything worked out. We now have a federalist Coalition Avenir Québec government under François Legault and everything is working out.

My point is that this is not a political issue. It is about an administrative agreement like any other between the federal government and the provinces. We want to apply the same model to the single tax return. I simply want to reiterate that, under Pauline Marois' minority yet still firmly sovereignist government, that GST agreement worked perfectly well. Horror stories about a Quebec government that got angry at some point are simply rubbish. Everything works fine with the GST. It could work just as well for the single tax return.

I now turn to the most cardinal and fundamental aspect. I was saving it for last, because it is very much at the heart of this debate and of certain things that we have heard throughout the day, things I have no words for. No jobs will be jeopardized. They will be preserved.

On January 22, in Montreal, when the official opposition announced, among other things, tax measures to allow people to return to work without being penalized, and other measures that directly address the dumping of raw sewage in our waterways and rivers—over 60,000 such dumps occur every year in Quebec, which is outrageous—our government unveiled the first elements of our environmental policy. There are still eight months left in the electoral campaign and a lot of good things to come.

The leader of the opposition was asked a question about the single tax return. He said that “no public service jobs will be eliminated. [Public servants will deal with tax evasion, which will be better for taxpayers.] We need public servants to ensure that our federal laws are upheld. We can also make more effective use of the people who work for the federal government”. He made himself clear. There would be no job losses.

Throughout the day we heard people fearmongering, saying that this makes no sense, that the Conservatives are jeopardizing jobs, that they should talk to the families and so on and so forth, that the world is coming to an end, that their heart was not in the right place and that they had consulted no one. That is not true. Those are lies.

The reality is that we are not going to eliminate jobs. Is that clear? There will be no job losses. I assure the people who work for the CRA in Jonquière, Shawinigan, or anywhere else that they will not lose their jobs. Those who say the opposite are lying. Okay, that is clear. Now, let us hope that is what gets reported.

I am saddened to see that my distinguished colleague, the hon. member from the Shawinigan region forgot one small detail in his 10-minute-plus diatribe, namely that the leader had taken a position and said there would be no job losses. That is too bad.

One of the other things I heard today that completely threw me for a loop was the remark from the member for Mount Royal drawing a link between filing a single tax return and the separatist threat. Those were his exact words. Not to mention that the last time the Conservatives did that, we wound up with the Bloc Québécois.

Need I remind the member for Mount Royal, who was elected under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada, that it was under his party that Canada nearly imploded twice? It was under a Liberal Party government that Quebec separatists gained momentum and that there were two referendums. As everyone knows, it nearly ended very badly in 1995.

Need I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois emerged immediately after the Meech Lake accord died? Who opposed the Meech Lake accord? The federal Liberal Party, and especially its leader, Jean Chrétien, who did everything he could to make sure it did not work. This had some unfortunate consequences for Quebeckers, but Mr. Chrétien was so proud to go see his buddy, Clyde Wells, to thank him for everything he did. That is the Liberal Party to which the member for Mount Royal belongs. It is funny that he did not mention those things earlier.

His comments suggest that those in favour of a single tax return are separatists or are playing along with separatists. Is the member for Mount Royal prepared to say that Philippe Couillard is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that Pierre Arcand is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that Christine St-Pierre is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that David Birnbaum—whom he knows very well, as do I, because he was a colleague—is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that André Fortin, whom some already see as the leader of the provincial Liberal Party, is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that the hon. Geoffrey Kelley is a separatist? Are Saul Polo and Kathleen Weil also separatists?

It is disgraceful to see a man whom I respect and hold in esteem, a seasoned lawyer, resort to such unfortunate demagoguery. Quebeckers are fed up with the member for Mount Royal's fearmongering. He claims that if an individual supports the single tax return, he or she is a separatist. That is completely false, ludicrous and grotesque.

Worse still, the people claiming that jobs will be lost are wrong. This is not the first time we have seen such scare tactics. Let me remind the House of the timeline I laid out. On May 12, we, the Conservatives, adopted a motion for a single tax return. At the time, the byelection campaign for the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was in full swing. Chicoutimi is on the other side of the river from Jonquière. Jonquière is where the CRA tax centre is located. The people across the aisle were attacking the NDP. Need I remind anyone that the NDP was in favour of the motion at the time?

They came after us with all guns blazing, saying our proposal made no sense. They used scare tactics in the hope of frightening people into thinking they would lose their jobs. That is what we have been hearing all day. They kept repeating all this for weeks in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I have bad news for the pigmongers—fearmongers, I mean. Pigs have nothing to do with this. That is a whole other debate, which we will discuss when the topic of agriculture comes up.

What is the reality? The Liberals tried to scare the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, but the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord are proud people who understand and believe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the leader of the official opposition, when he says there will be no job losses. That is why 53% of voters in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord voted for the Conservative Party candidate.

I would like to close by quoting the statement from Quebec's former finance minister, a diehard federalist if ever there was one.

He said that he was “extremely disappointed” with the Prime Minister's position “because this was something that was in the public interest” of Quebeckers.

The Conservatives—