Debates of March 24th, 2021

Criminal Code

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member unreservedly for my error with respect to his vote, but it is unfortunate that his colleagues did not take his lead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague will not be surprised that I view the issue of mandatory minimums quite differently than he does. I believe that most people would agree that serious offences and serious offenders should receive commensurate sentences. However, I do not see anything in this legislation that prevents a judge from sentencing according to the unique circumstances of each crime.

Why does the member feel that parliamentarians are better positioned to assess what the sentence should be for a particular crime than a judge who is specifically trained in making those assessments and determinations?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, mandatory jail times have always been part of our criminal justice system. It appears that the Liberal government would not agree with the statement of the hon. member because the government is not rolling back all mandatory jail times. However, I would submit it is rolling back mandatory jails times quite inappropriately for a number of serious offences. On that basis, I cannot support the bill.

I would note that among the sections being revoked, in terms of mandatory jail times, is section 244(3)(b), which was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal about a year ago with respect to the reckless discharge of a firearm, so some of these—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

A very brief question from the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to share some facts with him.

Studies show that minimum sentences have actually contributed to the criminalization of certain people and have created problems within some of the more marginalized communities, such as indigenous people. They are more in need of public health supports than incarceration. Minimum sentences result in the disproportionate incarceration of indigenous people and members of other marginalized communities. These observations are based on facts. I would like to hear my colleague's views on that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I do not accept that eliminating mandatory jail times in any way helps persons in marginalized communities when we are talking about offences as serious as the ones provided for in this bill regarding mandatory jail times.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-22. In our opinion, this is an important bill that deserves to be carefully examined in committee and then debated in the House.

The Bloc Québécois believes in the principle of honest and impartial deliberations before an impartial court. We think it is important that judges have the necessary discretion to render appropriate decisions. They must first decide whether a crime has been committed and then they must determine the sentence for that crime, if applicable.

Some rather tragic situations have occurred in the current context, where Parliament decided a few years ago to tie the hands of judges with minimum sentences. I am thinking of a relatively recent case. Two or three years ago, a young man who was about 22 or 23 years old had a girlfriend who was about 15. He was in a relationship with her. The parents of both young people were okay with it and consented to it. The young people were open about the fact that they were dating. There were no secrets. At one point, the young man was sentenced, and the Court of Appeal had to reduce that sentence. The Court of Appeal indicated in its decision that it was rather absurd to impose minimum sentences in situations like this one, where the judge clearly needed to be able to exercise some discretion and use judgment in enforcing the appropriate standards.

We think judges should have that discretion, so we are in favour of getting rid of mandatory minimums wherever possible.

That said, eliminating mandatory minimums does not mean a free-for-all. It means that judges we trust, who have a modicum of intelligence, experience and knowledge of the justice system, will be able to adjust a sentence, instead of simply imposing sentences over which they have no discretion whatsoever, just because lawmakers decided at some point that it should be that way. That is one thing.

I would say that our confidence in the justice system shows in the objections we have repeatedly raised, as all my parliamentary colleagues have witnessed, with regard to the Liberal government's partisan appointment process. I can still hardly believe that we were told they were using the infamous “Liberalist” to check whether candidates for the bench had any relationship with the Liberal Party. That really bothered me because a system like that undermines public confidence in those judges. That was just an aside, but we have been consistent about that.

Let me just say that we think that the justice system should work and we should be able to have confidence in it. Our job as legislators is to pass legislation and ensure that judges are unhindered, that they are completely free to apply the law objectively and judiciously.

I would add that we must never forget that the job of the legislator is to decide what constitutes an offence. Our work on a criminal offence is to determine whether drug possession is an offence or not, whether murder is an offence or not. I hope it will continue to be, but theoretically it is up to the legislator to make those types of decisions. As part of the executive branch, police officers have to apply or enforce the laws voted in by us, and the judiciary has to decide whether the Crown is right, whether an offence has been committed. We have to be consistent and eliminate minimum penalties. I completely agree with that.

I also think that diversion measures are rather important. In Quebec, we have a rather unique system with young offenders and youth law. There were fierce debates several years ago before I was elected when the previous government wanted to impose minimum sentences on young offenders. In Quebec, we believe we must try to rehabilitate young offenders. In Quebec we have expertise on diversion programs. We are pleased to see that the current government wants to move the legislation in that direction.

Getting back to the topic of drugs, in recent years, drug addiction problems have been dealt with as Criminal Code offences. We believe that this is a public health issue rather than a judicial one.

I am not talking about drug traffickers. When someone brings 100 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, we agree that it has nothing to do with the person having a drug addiction. That individual does not need to spend time in a rehabilitation centre, but rather to be tried and duly punished.

On the other hand, when we are talking about simple possession or a young person with a drug addiction, we need to look after that person. That young person needs to be loved, treated fairly and supported in their recovery. That is what we believe, and we therefore plan to support Bill C-22.

I do not know how much time I have left, but I could go on and on about why I believe in the principles of diversion and judicial discretion. I also want to mention that I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues and, although I do not agree with everything they have said, I also do not disagree with everything they have said. They are right about a few things. I think the bill is far from perfect and therefore needs some fine tuning. We need to hear from experts in various fields at committee, propose amendments and improve the bill, because there is considerable room for improvement.

I have serious concerns about clause 20 of the bill, which would add a section 10.2 to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, giving peace officers, or police officers, the power to either lay an information for certain offences, to give a warning or to send the offender to a program, such as a rehabilitation program, an agency or another service provider. I think that rehabilitation programs are good, but I am hesitant to give police officers the authority to make this decision without any legal framework.

Personally, I like the system we have in Quebec. If a police officer wants to lay an information, they first go to the Crown prosecutor, who will choose whether to authorize the charge and may decide to send the offender to a program instead of proceeding to trial. The Crown prosecutor is given some leeway, while Bill C-22 would give that leeway to police officers.

I have a lot of friends who are police officers, and I have a lot of respect for what they do. I am not saying that they are unable to show discretion, diligence or good judgment, but I still believe that Crown prosecutors or the director of criminal and penal prosecutions should have some oversight over this specific issue.

New clause 10.4, which the bill would add to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, states that the police force in question may keep a record or registry of any warnings or referrals. Should the “may” not be a “must”? That would ensure that there is a record of all of the warnings and referrals made by the police. What is more, should a provision not be added to enable the director of criminal and penal prosecutions to check that record from time to time or to ensure diligent follow-up? I do not think that leaving all the discretionary power in the hands of the police without any follow-up or oversight is the right solution.

I am not willing to give carte blanche with regard to Bill C-22. I think we need to examine it. I would like to hear what police officers think of the bill. I would also like to hear from people working in detox facilities or in offender rehabilitation. I would like to hear from all of those people and from Crown prosecutors, but I do not know how comfortable they would feel testifying before a parliamentary committee.

I would like to examine every aspect of these provisions because this is so important. I have to say that I am a little disappointed to see this happening at the end of the legislative process.

There has been talk of an election. Mr. Trudeau seems to be hinting at a spring or fall election.

Will we have time to pass Bill C-22 before Parliament is dissolved? I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member not to name his House colleagues.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

I was saying that the Prime Minister has been hinting at an election call. My fear is that the writ will be dropped and Parliament dissolved before we pass Bill C-22. That would be a real shame because society needs us to improve the existing judicial process with respect to some of the sentences in Bill C-22.

I would like to add one thing. I listened to my Conservative colleague go over some of the sentences covered in Bill C-22. He said that some sentences should not be in it. I think there are others that are maybe not included but that should be. Once again, this should all be looked at in committee. Personally, I am open to collaborating with my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and any other party so we can make sure our judicial process reflects voters' concerns.

That sums up my thoughts on the subject.

In closing, let me reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-22 so that the committee can study and improve it. I think this bill has plenty of room for improvement.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. He seemed to suggest that he believes that the legislature has no role in sentencing—that it is up to the legislature to determine what is a crime, but that it is up to judges alone to determine sentencing. I think there is a strong case to be made, though, that legislatures in a democracy have a responsibility to at least establish something like sentencing starting points. We can debate whether mandatory minimum sentencing starting points and other mechanisms are appropriate.

The reason for the legislature to have a voice in sentencing is twofold.

Number one, in a democracy, it is the job of a legislature to establish the relative seriousness of a crime and to say, through sentencing starting points or mandatory minimums or other mechanisms, that we view something as a very serious crime and that we therefore have set a higher sentencing starting point, and that we view something else as a less serious crime and have therefore set a lower starting point.

Another important reason for the legislature to be engaged is a matter of equality. Different judges likely have different opinions about the sentences that are appropriate for certain crimes, so to have a standard sense of what the sentencing starting point is for a particular crime ensures equality for people who go before different judges for the same crime.

Does the member agree in principle that legislators in democracies should have some role in establishing, at the very least, starting points for sentencing so that there is equality and so that there is some social voice speaking to the court about the relative seriousness of certain kinds of crimes?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked me that question. It may surprise him to learn that I agree with him, at least in part.

I agree that it is obvious that legislators have a role to play. There needs to be some room to manoeuvre. In some cases, we have to use minimum sentences. Often we have to use maximum sentences. We must establish the criteria for determining whether a de facto situation is a crime. That is the role of legislators. That is what we have always done and must continue to do.

Where my colleague and I disagree is that I think we must give judges more discretion. My colleague is right to say that different judges have different opinions, but I think that is precisely what makes our justice system successful.

Personally, if I am charged with a crime, I would not want to be evaluated and judged by a machine or a computer. I like the idea of standing in front of a human being who will listen to my explanations and decide whether I am right or wrong. I agree with having minimum sentences and maximum sentences, but we have to give judges room to manoeuvre so that they can dispense justice effectively and judiciously.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree. I think that judges should have the ability to make decisions on sentencing.

One of the disappointments to me, after hearing calls from the British Columbia government and the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association to decriminalize drugs, is that this bill does not go far enough. We know that the war on drugs is a colossal failure. It means that the people who get targeted do not have the means to protect themselves, such as indigenous people and people of colour. They get targeted much more than white males do. We know this is a failure.

Does my colleague think that we should be going further and look at European models for dealing with the war on drugs and decriminalize this completely to take it out of the hands of organized crime?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think the complete decriminalization of drugs is also an important issue, one that we are going to have to debate one of these days. It is inevitable.

Bill C-22 does not steer us towards completely decriminalizing the use and possession of drugs. Like my colleague, I think we also need to examine that possibility. However, I do not believe we will be doing that with Bill C-22.

Let us start by supporting this bill and trying to improve it as much as possible to address our constituents' concerns. This would be a step in the right direction.

I would be very open to the possibility of studying this matter. The Bloc Québécois has already indicated where we stand. We are in favour of studying this important issue.

As I said earlier, I see drug addiction as a health problem, not a criminal problem.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his heartfelt speech, which was articulate and very persuasive.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I would like him to elaborate on the negative repercussions of the minimum sentences that are currently in effect for certain circumstances, in particular with respect to the potential rehabilitation of offenders.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his question. He always asks questions that are relevant and often too tough for me to answer.

Earlier, I cited the example of the young couple accused of enticement of a minor. I do not remember the exact charges, but I thought the case was rather frightening. There are situations that are not criminal in nature. In this instance, we are not talking about someone who misled and manipulated a young girl without her consent and behind her parents' backs. We are talking about an open, normal, healthy relationship that was supported by the parents of the young couple, who wound up in court. The young man unfortunately had to be sentenced because of the minimum sentences. I think this is a terrible situation.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is right about drugs. We are talking about people who have a health problem, who are addicted to drugs. Instead of receiving treatment, they are sent to prison, where they may meet people convicted of drug trafficking or other, more serious crimes, and spend one month, one year, six months or 10 years with them. It does not matter how long—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I need to give others a chance to ask questions.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find this kind of interesting. Bill C-21 potentially throws airsoft firearms owners and paintball gun owners in jail, while Bill C-22 literally allows criminals and gangs to run free, those same gangs that do drive-by shootings.

Bill C-22 eliminates mandatory prison time for those who commit armed robbery. Can the member confirm that he supports the elimination of mandatory prison time for someone found guilty of an armed robbery?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We have already been asked why we would support Bill C-21, which would take certain firearms off the market.

I can understand why he would say that Bill C-21, at face value, appears to restrict or prohibit weapons that are harmless, or, at least, not harmful or the same type we want to restrict or prohibit.

We took the same approach with Bill C-21. We said that it needed to be studied in committee and amended. If my colleagues want perfect bills that can be passed as soon as they are introduced, I encourage them to immigrate to Quebec. Once we become a sovereign nation, we will have excellent pieces of legislation. The only thing we can do now is study the federal government's bills, and there is no question that they need amendments.

We have to study them in committee so that we can hear from experts and get people to reconsider poorly worded bills. My colleague is right; Bill C-21 must be improved.

I do not believe that people playing with toy guns need to be sent to prison. When I was a kid I played with guns and I did some things that my children and grandchildren may not be able to do today. I do not see how I, or anyone else, could have been sent to prison for such activities.

My colleague is right: Bill C-21 needs to be improved, and so does Bill C-22.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke will have five minutes to begin his speech and to resume the next time the bill comes to the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to rise in the House today rather than just speak to a pinhole camera, as I always say, but let me say that New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-22 at second reading, because there are some good ideas in it. However, if we are going to be amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, we see Bill C-22 as a real missed opportunity. We have two very important crises in front of us as Canadians. One is the opioid crisis and the other is the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and Canadians living in poverty. We had a real chance to tackle both of those issues in this bill and, instead, the government has given us a very tepid response.

What we should see in this bill is a change to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use, and we should also see a second provision that would automatically expunge previous criminal records for personal possession of drugs. If we had those two things in this bill, we could tackle the problem of addiction by moving it clearly to the health system rather than the criminal justice system, and we could tackle one of the main causes of over-incarceration of marginalized people in Canada.

The policies that New Democrats are talking about are more effective, more just and even cheaper. I want to talk about mandatory minimums. The one good idea in the bill is to eliminate mandatory minimums for drug offences. New Democrats have certainly long argued for this. Conservatives, in their speeches, have been saying that the bill would eliminate mandatory minimums created by the Liberals, which is true and I am for that, and it creates a lot more mandatory minimums created by Conservatives, and I am also in favour of that.

Mandatory minimums do not do a thing to prevent or deter crime or make Canadians safer. All that mandatory minimums do is to guarantee that some people who should not be in prison at all, who would be better off in rehabilitation or diversion programs, are incarcerated. Mandatory minimums end up costing the public money, and having spent 20 years as a criminal justice instructor before coming here, I can say that those who go to prison actually end up far more likely to reoffend than those who do not. Therefore, rehabilitation and diversion programs are a great success and mandatory minimums stand in the way of those programs.

When it comes to overrepresentation, there is no doubt that when we look at the statistics of how many indigenous people are in the correctional system, though they are only 4.9% of the population, they make up over 30% of the people incarcerated in Canada, as the criminal investigator, Ivan Zinger, reported. If we look at Black Canadians, in the last census though they were about 3.5% of Canadians, they are more than double that percentage of the prison population. Many people who live in poverty end up embroiled in the criminal justice system because of very minor drug offences. Again, if we are looking at what the real solution is to both of these problems, it is decriminalization of the personal possession of small amounts of drugs.

Let us take the example of Portugal, which decriminalized personal possession in 2001. We see some very positive results as a result of that legislative action. There have been steep declines in overdose deaths in Portugal, in drug usage, in new cases of HIV and hepatitis C infections and in drug-related crime. Overdose deaths declined from over 400 per year to less than 40. Drug usage declined among all age groups, but it was an especially large decline in the 15-year-old to 24-year-old age group. New HIV infections declined by 90%. Portugal previously had the highest rate of drug-related HIV cases, and decriminalization led to that very steep decrease. It also led to a decrease in incarceration, by about 75% for drug offences.

This measure had lots of related impacts. First of all, the police reported that they had much more time to devote to serious drug trafficking cases when they were not messing with personal possession cases, and it helped eliminate many long delays in the Portuguese criminal justice system by taking many of these minor cases out of the court system.

Did it solve all problems related to addiction and drug use? No, of course it did not. Observers have pointed to the need that if we decriminalize personal possession, we need strong prevention and treatment programs to go alongside that. We need things like supervised injection sites, needle exchanges, provisions for the safe supply of drugs, better access to anti-overdose medications and improved access, obviously, to drug prevention and treatment programs.

Certainly the opioid crisis makes more dramatic action than this bill offers necessary. On the south island, in 2019, there were 65 overdose deaths. In 2020, during the current pandemic crisis, there 120 deaths. In British Columbia as a whole in the period of COVID, the number of toxic-drug deaths doubled in that time period.

Is decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use still an idea outside the mainstream? Certainly I felt like an outlier when I first began talking about this as a city councillor in 2008, though, of course, Portugal was my example then as it is now. However, now we can add to the list of supporters of decriminalization of personal possession, including big city mayors, from Kennedy Stewart in Vancouver to Valérie Plante in Montreal; the Elizabeth Fry Society; the John Howard Society; virtually every criminal justice researcher; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; the World Health Organization; the Global Commission on Drug Policy; and various UN agencies.

While the New Democrats are offering support for this timid bill, it does do one good thing in eliminating those mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences. However, what we are offering is also criticism for the failure to take on the bigger questions that lie behind our failure to confront the opioid crisis, the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and Canadians living in poverty.

The New Democrats will continue to fight for more effective, comprehensive and cheaper measures to get these two jobs done.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-224, An Act to amend An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

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

“An Act to amend An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces”

Motion No. 2

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

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

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

Motion No. 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion No. 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish a good evening to all my colleagues as we continue to operate virtually in this very extraordinary period of time. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak during today's report stage debate on Bill C-224, an act to amend An Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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