Debates of Feb. 1st, 2023

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking every disability organization, individual and ally for keeping up the pressure on the Liberal government to get Bill C-22 here today. Their work is invaluable and their ongoing collaboration in making regulations is key.

Let us take a minute to reflect on the process that has brought us to today.

In 2019, the Liberal platform included a promise for the Canada disability benefit. The government has been elected with a minority government twice over the past three-plus years, 1,200 days ago, yet there is still no Canada disability benefit. The Liberal government, 589 days ago, tabled the first iteration of the Canada disability benefit act, Bill C-35, and then called an unnecessary election, cancelling this legislation. After 232 days, the Liberals had still not tabled a bill for the Canada disability benefit in this session of Parliament, so the NDP used its power to force the Liberals to act.

On May 10, 2022, the NDP brought a unanimous consent motion for the Liberal government to introduce, without delay, a Canada disability benefit act to get this important legislation moving. It was only under that pressure that this bill finally came to the table.

The NDP is ready to move forward with this bill, even though it contains very few details, as many of my colleagues have stated, details like who will get this benefit, how much the benefit will be and when people living with a disability will start receiving it.

In the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we studied Bill C-22, and there were frustrations around the lack of details expressed. Throughout the study, witnesses informed us that because the need for income support was so acute, they wanted this bill to get into law and wanted us to work on the details later.

The message was so clear: Income support is needed now. Too many persons with disabilities are living in poverty, and with skyrocketing costs of living, persons with disabilities are making impossible choices between food, medication, housing, transportation and more. The difficult conditions are even leading some to consider MAID.

That is why today, even with the lack of details in this bill, the NDP supports moving it forward quickly so that the Liberals can finally live up to their promise of realizing the needed Canada disability benefit and relieve unnecessary suffering, if they would just bring the supports forward.

One of the details the committee received from ESDC was a comparison between the highest poverty line per province and the standard amount of provincial disability supports. Not a single province provides income supports to persons with disabilities that are even close to the poverty line. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick show the highest gaps, at more than $12,000 a year, while two of the most affluent provinces, Ontario and B.C., have gaps of nearly $10,000 a year. Across Canada, the average annual gap for income support for person with disabilities is nearly $9,000 in comparison to the poverty line.

These numbers were from 2020, and the gaps are surely higher now with inflation. Those gaps do not even include the additional costs of living with a disability in this ableist country. This is unacceptable.

Canada has an obligation to uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ensure dignity and full equality for all. Under this convention, we must adhere to article 28, which declares an adequate standard of living and social protection for persons with disabilities. That, along with other international and national obligations, is not being met in Canada. The government has other binding obligations, including the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to ensure that persons with disabilities have an adequate standard of living. The Liberal government must live up to these commitments.

As human rights lawyer Vince Calderhead said during HUMA testimony on Bill C-22:

...the government could very quickly ensure that its human rights obligations are met in a way that is not compromising and that meets those obligations.

No one should have to compromise with trade-offs to their human rights entitlements in order to ensure quick passage of the bill.

However, that is exactly what we are doing here.

With the Liberals' 1,200 days of delay and the declining standard of living for the almost one million Canadians with disabilities living in poverty in this country, the House feels the critical urgency to fast-track this empty bill, on the hope that the Liberals will collaborate with the disability community and do the right thing to ensure this new Canada disability benefit would be adequate and would ensure that no person with disabilities lives in poverty. The Liberals must do better.

Members can imagine closing that gap between provincial and territorial supports and the official poverty line and what a difference that would make for persons with disabilities. We can also consider the need to supplement that poverty line to truly accommodate the cost of a disability in this country, including accessibility aids, medication costs and transportation. The list goes on.

The NDP fought to get adequacy enshrined in legislation here, but the Liberals would not support it for consideration at committee. That is a real red flag, and it gives me great concern that the Liberals will not provide an adequate benefit.

For some protection, the NDP introduced an amendment in regulations that outlined a minimum benefit amount and that the benefit must consider the official poverty line. The NDP expects the benefit to be even greater than that. The NDP has also achieved some other transparency amendments in the process of developing the bill's regulations at committee. The minister would now be required to table in the House a progress report, within six months of royal assent, on the engagement and collaboration with the disability community in relation to the development of future regulations. The NDP was also able to reflect the urgency of this benefit, ensuring it would come into force no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.

During the HUMA committee's study on Bill C-22, we heard testimony from the Québec Intellectual Disability Society that it had taken four years to develop the regulations and framework for Quebec's new income project. This cannot happen with the disability benefit, so protections are now in place to limit the time the government can spend making these regulations.

However, even with those amendments out of committee, Bill C-22 would still rely on regulations to determine who would get the benefit, how much it would be and when they would get it. The Liberals have delivered just a framework that leaves those key decisions to be finalized behind the closed doors of cabinet.

Let me reiterate for the cabinet that persons with disabilities living in poverty in this country are relying on this new income support, and they need more than a framework to pay their bills. In good faith, the disability community believes in the Liberal promise of “Nothing Without Us” from the preamble of this bill. Do not disappoint them. Do not deny them their human rights. Canadians have heard a lot of promises from this minister and his government. This needs to be more than a promise.

I will close by saying that the NDP supports fast-tracking this framework and looks forward to its quick movement through the Senate. We expect the government to show a commitment to the urgency and an investment of significant funds in the upcoming budget for the Canada disability benefit.

To really solidify the House's commitment on the urgency of this bill, because we have heard it today in this House, if you seek it, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, later today, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam's powerful speech and her strong support of strengthening Bill C-22 throughout the committee process.

My question is similar to a question I asked of a Conservative member earlier. As the member has also shared many times, it is not good enough to move this legislation ahead. The governing party needs to fund the Canada disability benefit. Could the member speak more to the ways that she and the rest of her party will continue to put pressure on the governing party to fund the Canada disability benefit?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for all the work he has done on this bill since Parliament began to sit. This is a key area of the budget.

The NDP has been talking for a long time about supports for persons with disabilities, and not just on Bill C-22. It was because of the NDP that there were supports for persons with disabilities with CERB, so I can say NDP members have always been strong advocates for persons with disabilities, all the way back to Jack Layton. We will be pushing, like we have been for decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that genuine supports would be going out. We saw it during the pandemic, where the government came forward with one-time payments for people with disabilities. This legislation demonstrates a clear commitment to continue to provide supports.

One of the issues raised when we talk about federal supports going to people with disabilities is the issue of the potential threat of clawbacks at different levels of government. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on ideas for potential safeguards or on issues related to the potential of other types of clawbacks from other jurisdictions taking place. Is there anything she would like to say on that particular point?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives and the Liberals have been in government for decades. I would expect there is a clear framework of how the provincial government works with a federal government.

As a woman standing in the House of Commons, I would like to say that I would hope there will be much more information than what was shared at committee around gender equity in regard to this bill. I am very concerned the women in those households are going to have disproportionate negative impacts if the government does not get this right.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I sit on the HUMA committee together, and we have worked together in opposition to attempt to make parts of this bill better, even though it is still determined that almost everything will come out during regulations.

My question to the member is regarding the timeline after this bill potentially passes and receives royal assent. When we were at committee, in the questioning of the minister, she was asked to lay out the timeline, what the process would be for regulations, how long that would take and when people would eventually be receiving benefits.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the timeline and if she was surprised to hear at committee that it was going to take that long, considering a lot of the communication from the government on this made it sound like, once this bill was passed, people would be receiving some type of benefit very soon.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated working with the member at committee.

I am concerned about timelines, and I am really concerned about not having good collaborative consultation with those in the disability community, who have said that they want to outline these guidelines. They want to be fully involved in the regulation, which is one of the reasons we respected, as a committee, limiting the amount of amendments we would bring in on that area of regulation.

I am really concerned. I am even concerned they might not meet the timelines outlined in this bill, so we need to work hard as opposition parties to really hold their feet to the fire on this one.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to feel that, because this is a noble cause, since it is about respecting the dignity of people living with disabilities, it can table a sloppy, amateurish bill, as we very often see with bills.

How does my colleague explain the fact that we do not know the criteria, the conditions, the amounts or the method of calculation? We are at third reading, but when I listen to the debates, I feel like we are only at the stage of debating the bill's principle. We are handing over a blank cheque, because the government is exploiting the vulnerability of certain people to justify its lax approach, as happens so often in the House.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the very strong voice of the disability community and its allies, with respect to wanting to be involved in the making of regulations, is a great way forward. I am really hoping that we can get this bill to the Senate as soon as possible.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak once again to this very important Bill C-22 around establishing the Canada disability benefit at third reading.

I would be remiss to not first take a moment to acknowledge the continuous work of my NDP colleague, the MP for Port Moody—Coquitlam, as well as so many in the disability community for their dedication to bringing the voices of those living with disabilities forward. Most of all, I want to acknowledge and thank all those living with disabilities for their endless perseverance to demand better.

I am in awe daily of the bravery shown by so many living with disabilities to share their stories and to push for their basic human rights, not only for today but also for generations to come. It is clear we need the government to act now and to implement this much overdue benefit.

While I am happy to be here today at third reading, I am beyond disheartened that people with disabilities still do not have the support they so desperately need and deserve. I feel it is worth reiterating that the supports those living with disabilities are asking for are those to meet the most basic needs, such as food on the table, a place to call home and heat to keep warm through the winter.

I would like to pose the question to all members of Parliament in the House, which is “how long is too long to wait for supports to meet basic needs? How long is too long to go hungry? How long is too long to go without a home?” I am sure all those in the House can appreciate that even one day going hungry, without a safe place to sleep at night, without heat to keep warm is too long.

We live in Canada, a country that prides itself on taking care of one another, yet the government continues to delay vital and life-saving supports for those living with disabilities. It has been seven years, to be exact, of delays. The Liberals have been in power for seven years and have taken no concrete action to date to lift people with disabilities out of poverty. My hope is that today this sad history will change.

I have said it in the House before and I will say it again that some of the strongest people I know are living with disabilities, exhibiting incredible strength despite being kicked down over and over again. People with disabilities are contributing members of our communities, like I have also heard in the House today, with their own unique stories, talents and skills. People living with disabilities have loved ones and hobbies and goals they are working on, just like all of us.

We know that more than 5.3 million Canadians live with disabilities, and of those 5.3 million, one million live in poverty. One million. Disability Without Poverty, a Canadian grassroots disability-led movement, stated that “We have a crisis of poverty in this country. Over 41% of people impacted are people with disabilities. This cannot be ignored anymore in a country like ours.”

Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across the country who are living with disabilities are reaching out, pleading for support. Will the government listen and ensure that those living with disabilities get the supports in place today? There is no more time to wait. Without action, we will continue to see people living with disabilities being legislated into poverty. This is a fact. For example, for someone living with a disability who is unable to work as a result, the support they receive at a time when they need it most does not provide the minimal supports required to make ends meet. It is shameful.

The words of Catherine, who is living with a disability, really summarize the experiences I have been hearing from so many, both on Vancouver Island at home, and across Canada. Her words are, “It has been truly dehumanizing living in Canada as a Disabled individual. I'd never wish my disease on anyone. The chronic pain and suffering that comes with my disease is awful enough on its own. But to then suffer extreme poverty adds a new level to the suffering for people with disabilities. Our basic needs are not met and yet we are told to be grateful for the pocket change we are forced to live off of.”

She goes on to say, “Bill C-22 has a mission to pass an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act. I hope this bill properly serves my community and saves lives. Please provide the help my community has been begging for. This issue is life and death. I hope it is rolled out urgently and with care.”

So many like Catherine are asking for supports to be implemented now for those who need them most and for us to ensure that the voices of those who are living with disabilities are part of the entire decision-making process from beginning to end.

Who better to identify the needs and challenges of those living with disabilities than those living with disabilities? How many times does the government need to repeat the cycle of a top-down approach before realizing that this does not work for anybody?

The Accessible Canada Act specifically recognizes the importance for those living with disabilities to be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures in the spirit of “nothing without us”. “Nothing without us” means more than checking a box saying that consultation to the most superficial degree has been completed; it means having those with lived experience as an integral part of the development, design and implementation of these supports.

The current minimal disability supports have been further eroded by the affordability crisis and growing inflation, leading to increasingly dire situations every day for those living with disabilities and their families. I have spoken before about Jocelyn, a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Her story and experience are similar to those of far too many people living with disabilities whom I speak with day after day.

Jocelyn is a single parent of two young children who holds an education, work experience and a drive to contribute and give back to her community. Unfortunately, Jocelyn was in multiple accidents, leaving her unable to work and reliant on the minimal disability income provided to make ends meet. She described to me the challenges she experiences in covering just the basic costs of living. Jocelyn was very clear that all she was hoping for was the certainty that her children would have food on the table and a place to call home. Housing and food are certainly not luxuries for her and her children. These are basic human rights.

Legislating Jocelyn into poverty also means legislating her children into poverty. Despite her perseverance and incredible resiliency, she is set up for failure. At a time when her children need the best start to life, Jocelyn is struggling to provide the basics for them. It is clear that without the leadership required by the Liberal government, the impacts on those living with disabilities will continue to be felt for generations to come.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also shared with us her concerns about barriers to accessing necessary supports for those living with disabilities. Bea said:

From barriers to employment to affordable housing to access to care, so many people living with disabilities face unacceptable barriers to economic security.... With rising costs making life even harder, we must make sure the bill is well designed and is a meaningful addition to existing federal, provincial and territorial supports, so help gets to those who need it.... People living with disabilities deserve to live in dignity.

Let me be clear. This is not the bill an NDP government would have put forward. As of today, we are looking at an empty bill without the specificity required to see real change. However, it is not too late for the government to make these changes. There is still time for the government, with the support of all members in the House, to move forward with a bill that provides an income that pulls individuals living with disabilities, at minimum, out of poverty. It can create a bill that clearly articulates who is eligible for the supports, what the benefit amount will be and when such supports will be made available and placed in the bank accounts of those with most need.

An issue compounding the struggles to make ends meet experienced by those living with disabilities is not knowing if there is any hope in sight. It is devastating to hear many people living with disabilities sharing that they are hopeless and that the only option left for them is to consider medical assistance in dying. When choosing to die is easier than trying to live, we know there is a deep-rooted problem with the decisions being made.

It is time for the Liberal government to step up to provide hope and move forward with a bill that contains the substance required to ensure those living with disabilities can live with dignity and respect. The first step is moving Bill C-22 forward to the Senate.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the last comment my colleague from the NDP made. It is time for this to pass, and I am glad to hear that a unanimous consent motion was adopted a few moments ago with regard to that. I know the NDP has been particularly critical in terms of the specifics within the bill, but when we look at it, a bill of this nature really needs to have consultation with the stakeholders. One thing we do know is that the individuals who are going to be most affected by this want to and have to have a say in the various different supports that are there for them.

I realize there is a push to get this passed as quickly as possible to have those supports in people's hands. However, would she not agree that it is important to have that genuine feedback come through the proper framework development process in order to get it right?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is important that we talk about the specificity of the bill. I have a couple of thoughts on that: First, the Liberals have been in power for seven years. There has been a lot of time in which the consultation could have been done. Absolutely, people who are living with disabilities need to be involved in this process right from the very beginning to the very end. Who knows best but those living with disabilities?

We also need to recognize that it is time to move forward with action. Rabia Khedr, the CEO of DEEN Support Services and national director of Disability Without Poverty stated her position that people with disabilities need money now. They are sick and tired of being consulted. The government should know the problem by now and it is time to deliver.

Those are not my words. This is what we are hearing from those in the community, and they are saying that they need these supports now. That is coming from them, so it is time for us to listen.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the comments the member made was that this is not the bill that the NDP would have put through, yet they have a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals. If this is really important to them, why was it not negotiated in that agreement? There might have been a different bill than what we see here today.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is here to get things put in place for people. That is exactly what we are doing. With this agreement, we were able to get tremendous outcomes for people who need dental care and the doubling of the GST. Those are just two examples. No, we were not able to get everything we wanted in there. That is why we continue to persevere and push for the Liberal government to implement the items that are so desperately needed in our communities, such as the disability benefit that we are debating today

This is vitally important. The NDP has been fighting for generations for the supports that people with disabilities need and deserve. We will keep doing that until we see those who are living with disabilities living with dignity and respect.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, whom I spend a lot of time with at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We have a great rapport and usually see eye to eye.

For the most part, I agree with her that we need to move forward and find solutions. I understand my colleague's position, but is she not worried about the end product? Is she not worried that all this haste could lead to slipshod results?

Yes, from a political standpoint, we will be happy. Outwardly, we will say that we are glad that there is finally a law, that it has been a long time coming and that we are pleased. We will give ourselves a round of applause. However, at the end of the day, in real life, people with disabilities will not find much to reassure them that they will really get tangible, concrete and timely support.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely appreciated working closely with my colleague on the fisheries committee.

People in the disability community are asking for this to be put ahead, for it to go to Senate and pass royal assent. Then we can do the work of having those living with disabilities as part of the process. This will ensure that the specificity is included so that we know when this is coming. There are a lot of details that need to happen to ensure that those with disabilities can have the hope they so desperately need to plan and move forward, knowing the supports they need are on the way.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 6:30 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried, carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to now rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Thursday, February 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

moved that Bill C-239, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about the single tax return. I will talk about it more later. Quebeckers have been wanting this for a long time. The House needs to understand why they want a single tax return. The reason is that they have to file two tax returns: the federal return and the Quebec tax return. Why is that?

Let us go back to the beginning. To understand why someone is suffering or to understand a problem, we must learn about the history of the problem. The problem actually began in 1867 when Canada was created. Many believe that it was created by people from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, who were all united in saying that they wanted a country that would be called “Canada” and who were determined to come together. That kind of thing only happens in fairy tales. In reality, it did not happen that way at all.

It is very simple. In 1854, Canada signed a reciprocity treaty with the Americans. Why? Because Canada used to sell goods to its mother country, Great Britain, which later turned to Europe instead. The British said they would not buy anything from Canada anymore; they were turning to Europe and they would do free trade. What happened was that the rich folks in Canada had nowhere to sell their products. They thought it might be nice to sell to the United States, so they signed this reciprocity agreement with the Americans in 1854.

After that, we began trading with the United States. We created trains to sell Canadian products to the United States. Unfortunately, the Americans decided they were going to kill each other with the Civil War. Since the English had an affinity with the south, they allied themselves with the southerners. The northerners won. The northerners wondered who these disgusting people were who had supported the south. It was the mother country, Great Britain, so they decided to take it out on her babies. They turned on us and said they no longer wanted anything to do with us.

We wondered what we would do if we could no longer sell to the Americans. That is when a few visionaries, the fathers of Confederation, quickly met together. We are not talking about a huge group of people coming together in song. No. They were wondering what they should do, because they could no longer sell their products. That is when Canada was created. There was no singing, no music, no speeches. It was just the fathers of Confederation meeting together for the first time in Charlottetown talking amongst themselves. They were plotting. In the end, they created Canada. People were wondering what that was. One Quebec humorist always said that Canada was doomed to failure because a bunch of fathers giving birth to something was never going to work.

In 1867, the fathers of Confederation felt it was absolutely necessary for the federal government to be very strong, so there would be a very united market. The provinces' powers needed to be limited, to prevent a civil war from breaking out like in the United States. The fathers of Confederation decided to make the provinces insignificant. The provinces would be given some taxing rights and a few responsibilities. The fathers of Confederation thought they were great visionaries. A blind mole has more vision.

Later on, they decided to give Quebec and the provinces a little bit of power, in other words the right to manage education and health, things they felt were insignificant. At the time, those things were the responsibility of the clergy. One hundred years later, we see that they were way out in left field. They also decided to give the provinces income tax, because they did not know what it was and thought it likely would not matter much. That was a serious mistake.

That is where my story begins, when they gave income tax to Quebec and the provinces. The first province to realize that there was something to this was British Columbia. It got to work and started to collect money in 1873.

Then came the First World War. The federal government figured it would be a good idea to tax income to pay for that war. That was in 1917. The federal government realized it could bring in a lot of cash that way. The tax was not supposed to outlast the war, but the government decided to keep it to pay off the debt. After 1929, the government said it would keep it because the dirty thirties were trying times. It spread its tentacles and made itself right at home.

Then came the Second World War. Subtle as a brick through a window, the government decided to maintain the status quo. After the war, they figured everything was fine, so why change it ever?

The federal government talked about benefits, and all the provinces except Ontario and Quebec reached an agreement in 1947. The government did it again in 1952. It told the provinces that was that and it was taking over that tax field going forward. Everyone got on board, except Quebec. Quebec always marched to the beat of its own drum, which is to be expected considering we are a nation and a people.

Quebec struck the Tremblay commission to figure out what to do about it. Before long, a consensus was reached, as articulated by Duplessis. In 1954, Quebec told Canada to make room in that tax field because it wanted its share too. The public service needed big changes, and Quebec needed money. That is why we have to submit two tax returns.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that there be only one tax return. In Canada, there would still be two tax policies. The federal government and the Quebec government would each have their own tax policy. However, there would be only one tax collector, and that is Quebec. It will collect all the income taxes. At the end of the year, the government that collects the tax will write a cheque to the other government and give it the money it is owed under its tax policy. The government that is not responsible for collecting the money will pay for services rendered.

This model already exists. Some say that it does not make sense, but they just need a little more vision. This model is already being used for the GST and the QST, and no one has died so far. It has not been a huge pain, and no one is going around saying that it is so awful they will die. This model exists. Quebec collects the GST for the federal government. There is only one tax collector. The federal government tells Quebec to go and get the money in a certain way and sends a cheque at the end of the year. It sends $145 million to Quebec as thanks, so that Quebec can pay its officials. That is how it works.

The tax collector should be Quebec, because Revenu Québec asks for a lot more information. The Quebec government's policies and interventions are more numerous and more complex. Quebec needs more information because it manages child care, schools, health care and so on. It needs this information so it knows where to provide these services. Tax data allows the government to do that. For instance, it uses the data to determine support payments for separated couples. The Quebec government can then deduct the amounts at source and give them to the spouse who is entitled to them.

Plus, if Quebec continues doing the collecting, it will not lose a jurisdiction that is required for collection. It keeps its jurisdictions. If Ottawa stops acting as the collector in Quebec, but continues collecting in the other provinces, there is no problem, it will keep those jurisdictions.

In addition, Quebeckers want the Quebec government to be in charge of collecting this money. Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a motion to that effect on May 15, 2018. Even the staunch federalist Philippe Couillard was there and voted for it. I was the one who tabled the motion. I remember, I was there. I could see Philippe Couillard, staunch federalist that he is, smiling. He knew what he was doing and he thought it was a good idea. In addition, the motion stated that Quebec would collect the taxes.

Why do that? It saves time and money. According to economist François Vaillancourt, it takes Quebeckers 10% longer to file their tax return than if they only had to file one. This is scientifically proven with econometric models. We are not talking 50% longer, just 10%. With technology, it is 10%. That amounts to $39 million a year for Quebeckers who have someone else file their tax return.

That would represent $99 million in savings for entrepreneurs. In addition, entrepreneurs should have less paperwork and we should help them. ensuring that they only have to file one return is one way to help them. It would be much simpler and would represent $99 million in savings.

No one needs a PhD in mathematics to understand that when the federal government and Quebec each have their own returns, two people are doing the same job. Can we afford to have two people doing the same job? That could mean $287 million per year in savings that would be shared by the federal government and Quebec. It would benefit everyone. We must understand that it would be beneficial for everyone, and I am not just talking about the time we could save.

What are the counter-arguments? First, jobs. Two people are doing the same job, and we have to wonder why that work cannot be done by a single person. Seems sensible to me. People will lose their jobs, they say. Yes, but here is the thing. Quebec will hire some of them because there will be more work to do and it will need more people, so some of them will go work in Quebec, and it will be easy enough to give them the same working conditions they had in the federal public service.

Keep in mind that we are in the third decade of the 21st century, and we are not seeing the 13% and 15% unemployment rates we used to see.

Mr. Speaker, you are young, but I am sure you have heard about high unemployment in the 1980s. Those days are done. The problem now is a labour shortage.

The government keeps going on about how the passport situation is tough because there are not enough workers.

People who contact the Canada Revenue Agency are not getting any service. We are told that it is because of the labour shortage. People who need EI are not getting the services they need. We are told that it is because of the labour shortage. The immigration department is assigning files to people who do not even work there anymore. Once again, it is because of the labour shortage.

What I am saying is that there is a pool of extremely competent workers in the government who can stay at the Canada Revenue Agency, which will need more people. They could also work on tax evasion files, or they could go and work elsewhere in the public service. Plus, if this is done gradually, they can all transition to retirement and their positions can be eliminated through attrition.

Some people will argue that the feds share information with other countries. When tax returns are filed, we have to talk with other countries to avoid doubling up on accounting and taxation. If Quebec were collecting taxes, those agreements would no longer be valid.

However, we could tell the United States that the federal government used to provide this service, but that Quebec is now doing it and that the agreement is off. When the United States finds out that Quebec is a free trade zone now, that people are leaving the U.S. to work in Quebec and that it will not have any information anymore, it will get in touch with the Quebec government. That is how it will work itself out.

The last criticism of this idea is not complicated. Some say that the federal government would lose out on information that is important for keeping its public service running and for making informed decisions. That is not true, because the Quebec government collects more information than the federal government. The Quebec government could simply transmit any information requested by the federal government. The opposite cannot happen, because the Quebec government has a much larger database. This is why a single tax return is needed. It is as simple as that.

In 2019, Quebeckers were surveyed on whether they were in favour of a single tax return with Quebec as the tax collector. Fully 65% of respondents said yes, 22% said no, and 12% were not sure.

The National Assembly of Quebec is on our side, Quebec is on our side and common sense is on our side. It is time to join the 21st century, figure out a smart way to deal with the labour shortage and pass this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the compliment. He said that I was not so old, but I think that he is only three years older than I am.

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member would likely find individuals in every provincial or territorial jurisdiction who would make similar arguments. Many of them might actually be separatists in their own jurisdiction.

The issue I have is this. Canada is a nation with 10 provinces and three territories. Would the Bloc be advocating that Canada should just dismantle CRA and have all provinces operate on their own? It seems to me that the Bloc has an approach to take anything that would minimize the federal government's role, in essence, any resources we get, just to be that ATM. Things like OAS and many other programs that the federal government provides, I think, are really important.

Would he not agree that, for example, if one is a senior in Quebec or a senior in B.C., Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, one should be entitled to the OAS? The federal government is, indeed, in a good position to administer many programs.