44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 19, 2023
- Bill C-239 is an amendment to an existing Act that allows the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements with provincial governments. These agreements would allow the government of a province to collect federal personal and corporation income taxes on behalf of the Government of Canada. This would streamline the tax filing process for residents of Quebec, who currently have to submit separate federal and provincial tax returns. The Minister of Finance is also required to have discussions with the Government of Quebec to enter into such an agreement. The bill also includes provisions for employment protection and ensuring access to necessary tax information.
- Yea (141)
- Nay (170)
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion defeated.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes.
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-239, under Private Members' Business.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today, the Bloc Québécois is defending a bill that all Quebeckers have been waiting for. I think I am right in saying that. We have examples. Some say that the single tax return is a separatist thing, that separatists are secretly gathering power, little by little, and that they need to be stopped. Unfortunately for the people saying these things, such is not the case.
On May 15, 2018, I moved a motion in the Quebec National Assembly that was unanimously adopted. Sitting opposite me was Philippe Couillard, who supported my motion. I think we can all agree that he is about as much of a separatist as I am a Cirque du Soleil contortionist, yet even he voted in favour of the motion.
He did it because it makes sense. It is the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do. It is efficient and will save us money. For all of these reasons, 75% of Quebeckers are saying that they want a single tax return because they are tired of filing two. Quebeckers also only want one tax collector, and they want it to be Quebec because we trust the Government of Quebec. All of the Quebec statistics show that the Government of Quebec is the best representative of Quebeckers. I am not the one saying that. It is Quebeckers. The question is simple. What do we do with that information? Will the government listen to Quebeckers, yes or no?
The time and money savings are obvious. The Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence has done scientific research on this. Research exists. Research has been done on this specific issue, not on something that may be close to the issue. We are talking about $425 million in ongoing savings. That is nothing to sneeze at, at a time when governments keep running deficits.
We do not have any money to waste, and now we have an opportunity to save $425 million. Why pass it up? That is the question.
Some will say they are afraid to put these good people out of a job. That would be too bad, because they are skilled and we would hate to see them lose their jobs. We like them. They are our public servants. Of course they are skilled. They are so skilled that we can find a use for them elsewhere in the federal public service.
We are talking about 3,000 people who do the same task that someone else is already doing. The NDP says that we must not put people out of work. After the orange tax comes the orange calculator, but maybe it is too hard to press the buttons. These are 3,000 jobs we are paying for anyway, for work that others are already doing. Ever heard of efficiency? There must not be very many business leaders in the NDP.
I think everyone can understand something so basic. We know the Liberals are against it, because anything that gives Quebec more power makes them nervous. They get antsy. It no longer makes any sense. They do not like it. I do not know why, but they do not like giving powers to Quebec. They are saying that we are already paying for 3,000 jobs, so is there enough room in the public service?
Passport offices are understaffed. People have to line up to get their passports like we used to line up for concert tickets. Do passport offices not need staff? Do immigration offices not need staff?
The immigration department is so understaffed that files are being assigned to people who have not worked there in 15 years. At the Canada Revenue Agency, files are on hold. Does it not need staff? Employment insurance must not need people either, nor the rest of the public service, because the government is giving more than $1 billion to McKinsey and its ilk for subcontracting. Are the Liberals going to tell me that no one can use 3,000 highly competent and skilled workers? Do I look that gullible?
That is the reality. Quebeckers, and consequently Canadians, have an opportunity to make their public service more efficient. The bill's opponents are engaging in idle partisanship but cannot produce a single argument against the incontrovertible logic of the single tax return. I have never heard anything in the House to make anyone have doubts about passing a bill that would be good for the economy and the intelligent management of the public service.
765 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this issue.
I would like to begin by congratulating the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for La Prairie, who led the fight for the single tax return in the Quebec National Assembly a few years ago and is now leading it here. It is an important fight.
It is a bit surreal to think that we are at this point today, wondering whether people should file one tax return or two. This is not rocket science; it makes absolutely no sense. Besides, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned, people in Quebec are the only ones who file two tax returns. It is too much paperwork, just a lot of paperwork. It is a problem.
People across Canada have no idea what this is like. They do not know what it is like to have to file two tax returns and fill out lines 287 and 544 two or three times when the issues and restrictions are not the same. It is complicated, and not everyone can afford accountants.
We saw what happened with a very important issue recently. Under Bill C-31, those who earn less than $20,000 a year and pay more than 30% of their income for housing are supposed to get $500, but many people could not find the form and did not know they were entitled to this $500. It is odd that we are talking about this, but there are plenty of people in Quebec who have run into these problems.
There is a problem here. There is already too much red tape, too much paperwork. We cannot understand why our Liberal friends and their NDP lackeys insist on saying no to such a measure. Perhaps it is because it comes from Quebec, because it would give Quebec more power and because it might make Quebeckers realize that, basically, they no longer need Ottawa. We already know that. We can say so, because that is why we are here. We are here because we believe that we no longer need Ottawa on many fronts. Ottawa always enjoys attacking Quebec. Yes, there are fine words, always lots of fine words.
Let us talk about language, for example. I always want to talk about it because what we hear from the other side is always somewhat hypocritical. I have listened to the Liberals talk ever since I became an MP. They keep saying that they will pass legislation on the issue of language, that French is in decline and that they will address this by introducing a bill with teeth that will halt the decline of French. It is fascinating to hear.
Today, I am going to make a solemn declaration: The only way to halt the decline of French in Quebec is for Quebec to become independent. There is no other way to do it. We could quibble about Bill C‑13. Even Quebec's Bill 96, which is a good law and will result in some progress, will not resolve the problem in a tangible way. That is what I want to talk about. The Liberals are hypocrites when they say that they want to work on this issue. Behind the scenes, in committee, the government directs its members, its West Island bullies, to sabotage its own amendments and its own bill because the Liberals are allergic to anything that comes from Quebec and to anything that could give more power to Quebec. That is what is at stake, and that is what we are talking about. It is fascinating.
I saw them, the West Island ministers, when they went to Montreal to protest against Bill 96. It is not enough for them to play the hypocrites in the House and not introduce the measures we need. Now they are working to sabotage legislation that might offer a slight improvement in the decline of French. It is fascinating. We keep seeing this double standard where things that are allowed across Canada and not allowed in Quebec.
We also see what is happening in immigration, where there is another problem. Quebec needs more control over our immigration levels in order to ensure that we can integrate newcomers. What are we seeing instead? The government dreams of a Canada with a population of 100 million, where 500,000 people are welcomed every year. Quebec is letting in 50,000 people right now, and we cannot integrate them. For whatever reason, good or bad, we cannot integrate the people arriving in Quebec. It is a major problem. In fact, it is the major problem, and we cannot cope.
We need to create an ecosystem in Quebec to ensure that we are able to integrate the people who are arriving from all over. We want to welcome these people. We need them to help us out with the labour shortage, for example. We need people who come from all over and bring their amazing knowledge and culture with them. They will make a positive contribution to our Quebec, the nation we love. We said that we needed more power. Mr. Legault got elected by saying that he would get that power from Ottawa. What was the answer he was given?
The answer was no. It seems that any request that comes from Quebec is seen as dangerous. The federal government decides that there must be something behind it and that Quebeckers are bound to take advantage to do bad things. The federal government is scared of us.
We are talking about a savings of $425 million. How can the federal government say no to that? How can it say no to $425 million when needs are growing? According to the study my colleague mentioned earlier, we are missing out on $425 million in savings.
There is a housing crisis. We talked about it earlier, but it is worth mentioning time and again. In the 250-page budget, how many pages are dedicated to housing? One and a half pages. Canada needs 3.5 million housing units over the next 10 years. The housing crisis is the greatest challenge of our time, alongside the language crisis and the climate crisis. The budget contains 250 pages of numbers, statistics and measures, but only one and a half pages on the housing crisis. Unbelievable.
This budget is basically a slap in the face to every person who does not have adequate housing in Canada. It is basically a slap in the face to the 250,000 people in Quebec alone who are in dire need of housing.
Then there is climate change. The government is sending billions of dollars to billionaires. It is appalling. It is utterly outrageous. That is what these geniuses came up with when they sat down to talk about taxes and dream up measures.
I am currently touring Quebec to talk about the housing crisis. In Trois‑Rivières, a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence is sleeping in a car with her two children. The budget does nothing for her. There is no mention of her in the budget. In Longueuil, 17 people are living in a three-bedroom apartment. There is no mention of those 17 people in the budget. The government is not addressing this problem.
Here is what we are talking about. This measure would not only eliminate paperwork and red tape, but it would also save money. It would help the less fortunate.
Health is another file with urgent needs. Quebec asked for $6 billion. How much did it get? I am tired of talking about health transfers, but I do not know how else to communicate. Maybe we could sing about it. My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix could sing about it. I could get up on the desk and do a little dance to convey how inadequate the health transfers are. People are dying in Quebec's emergency rooms.
Quebec asked for $6 billion. How much did it get? Did it get $4.5 billion, $3.2 billion or $2.8 billion? No. It did not even get $1 billion. The government is not doing anything to help fix the problem. There is no support.
There are all kinds of good reasons to tackle this problem. Things are dire. It is a surreal issue. We must fix this. This is an issue that is unique to Quebec. I will state right away that it is true that Quebec wants more powers. We do not want just a single tax return, we want all the powers. We want Quebec's independence.
1477 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech our Conservative colleague just gave. I respect the fact that he supports the bill despite being a federalist, and I thank him for it.
As my colleagues know, we are a separatist party. Consequently, taxation power is a crucial issue for us, because it is central to and inherent in the very principle of political sovereignty. It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that, in our opinion, it is high time we broke the shackles that bind us to Ottawa, this foreign entity that drains our financial resources and imposes its centralizing vision on us. As members know, in Canada, we are condemned to paying considerable sums of money to a state where our political weight is constantly declining. It is time to take control of our own destiny.
Bill C‑239, introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague from La Prairie, does not free us from the obligation to pay our share to the foreign state that is Ottawa or from the obligation to remit billions of dollars for priorities that we do not share. However, it would make it possible for Quebec to manage its own taxes with a single income tax return adapted to our realities and our needs. Ottawa, however, is digging in its heels and putting forward spurious arguments to continue controlling our finances.
The purported fear of job losses that we hear from the Liberals and the NDP is just a hollow excuse to justify their desire to control our revenues. The fact is, there are many other challenges facing the public service, including the Phoenix payroll fiasco, which has caused so much confusion in the management of public servants' salaries. Delays in processing applications and calls were commonplace long before the pandemic. This highlights the shortcomings of an outdated system. There have been many long and very frustrating delays.
It is time for Quebec to take back control of its taxation system to ensure that our distinct choices and unique characteristics are respected. The provincial income tax, created in 1954 by Maurice Duplessis, made history. In the year 2023, we must once again make our own history by demanding our own single tax return. Quebec deserves a tax system adapted to its reality and managed by its own democratic institutions. It is time we charted our own course towards a better future for our nation. It is time we implemented a single income tax return in Quebec, because it would bring us numerous indisputable benefits.
For nearly three decades now, Revenu Québec has successfully collected the Quebec sales tax as well as the federal goods and services tax. Why should it be denied the responsibility of also collecting federal income tax on behalf of Quebeckers? There is no reason why it should not be entrusted with this responsibility.
It is unfortunate that Ottawa has repeatedly rejected this proposal, meaning that Quebeckers are the only taxpayers in Canada who have to file two separate tax returns. It is now tax season. I would like to remind those who are watching that the deadline for filing a tax return is April 30. This situation creates considerable costs for citizens and businesses, not to mention the complications that arise from having to communicate with two separate organizations. We must abolish this administrative inconsistency and adopt a single income tax return in Quebec. It would make life much easier for taxpayers, but there are also other benefits to a single tax return.
According to the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, or the IRAI for short, this measure would save us a whopping $425 million. What is more, it would give Quebec direct access to foreign tax information, which means it could crack down on tax havens in a proactive, professional and concerted way, rather than having to simply copy the federal laws in that regard, which are a prime example of hollow, flawed legislation.
It is important to note that there is a consensus on this bill in Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of this measure on May 15, 2018. It was proposed by the MNA for La Prairie at the time, who is now the member for La Prairie in another Parliament here with me.
The Legault government formally made this request during a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada on January 17, 2019. It is time for Ottawa to acknowledge the will of Quebeckers that has been so clearly expressed. There is a clear desire to transfer the amounts saved through this measure so that Quebec, through Revenu Québec, can assume full responsibility for the single tax return.
We must put an end to this absurd situation where Quebeckers are the only ones who have to file two tax returns, with all the costs and complications that this entails. A single tax return in Quebec is a logical measure that will benefit taxpayers, the economy and the province's fiscal autonomy.
Let us act wisely. We must pass this for the benefit of all. I mentioned consensus, but it is not just the consensus of elected officials. The idea is backed by Quebec's business community, including chambers of commerce, independent businesses, the Quebec Employers Council and the Quebec CPA Order.
Look at what workers say, too. In 2016, the Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, the union that represents workers in Quebec's public and parapublic sectors, launched a campaign in favour of a single tax return administered by Revenu Québec. The campaign has the support of the Bloc Québécois, of course, but also the Coalition Avenir Québec, the Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire. Revenu Québec has the necessary expertise to implement a single tax return.
Quebec currently already collects more information from income tax returns than Ottawa does. Quebec already collects most of the critical information for managing its social programs, which is data that Ottawa does not have. I want to clarify that when we talk about a single tax return, it would of course be based in Quebec City. To hear the members across the way talk, they seem to be picturing a single tax return based in Ottawa. That is not what we mean.
I would like to add a quick word about the fact that concerns about job losses are unfounded, because expertise is transferable and so are jobs. We have always said that we want to transfer all the powers and responsibilities to Quebec. We want all of it to be transferred. It is the Liberal government that should stop using the threat of job losses at the tax centres.
In closing, a single tax return, received and collected by our only legitimate national capital, would be the best solution for everyone, including taxpayers, businesses and workers. It is time to rethink the way resources are allocated and to promote a decentralized approach to ensure greater efficiency and fairness in the tax system.
1205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the merits of Bill C-239, an act to amend the Act to enable certain tax payments to be made to the provinces and to authorize agreements with the provinces for the collection of taxes. I am going focus on the second half of the title.
The truth is that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that truly respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions. In fact, in early 2019, during question period in the House, I asked why the Prime Minister was stubbornly saying no to a single tax return in Quebec. One of my colleagues had tabled a motion in the interest of Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular. That motion read as follows:
That, given:
(a) the House has great respect for provincial jurisdiction and trust in provincial institutions;
(b) the people of Quebec are burdened with completing and submitting two tax returns, one federal and one provincial;
I should add that this is the only province in Canada that is required to file two tax returns.
(c) the House believes in cutting red tape and reducing unnecessary paperwork to improve the everyday lives of families; therefore,
the House call on the government to work with the Government of Quebec to implement a single tax return in Quebec, as adopted unanimously in the motion of the National Assembly of Quebec on May 15, 2018.
We Conservatives work together in the interest of all Canadians. The arguments presented in this motion are still just as valid. It is about respecting the provinces and also the intention to improve the quality of life of Quebeckers and the Canadian people.
Our leader, at the time, said that “no public service jobs will be eliminated” and that “we need public servants to ensure that our federal laws are upheld” and enforced. He said that “we can also make more effective use of the people who work for the federal government.”
Again in 2021, the Conservative Party of Canada supported the single tax return and also campaigned on it. The sponsor of Bill C‑239, the member for La Prairie, was inspired by our commitment, which goes back a few years, and the clear desire expressed by the National Assembly of Quebec. We listen to the intentions and will of the National Assembly of Quebec.
CRA workers, among others, have expressed concerns about their jobs. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that public servants did a good job during the pandemic. That is true, but all public servants in every department did a good job, not just CRA employees working in Quebec.
Out of respect for public servants, we must protect their jobs. That can be done when there is good will. That is a concern for us, the members of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would remind the House that the federal public service has been negotiating with the Liberal government for more than a year, and that there will be a public service strike this evening at one minute past midnight if an agreement is not reached. When people say that public servants should be treated well and that we should find jobs for them, we should come to an agreement with them because they did a good job during the pandemic. They are right. There were shortcomings and problems, but I believe that we must respect our federal public servants.
We still have a labour shortage. We are in the midst of an economic crisis and, on top of that, a labour crisis. Instead of handing out outrageous contracts, this government could show some faith in its own employees.
I recognize that there are certainly situations where expertise is needed to perform certain tasks, and that contracting out may be required. However, in many cases, Canadian public servants have filed complaints because, among other things, the contractors were doing the same work as the public servants, so the excuse of the need for expertise to justify these contracts does not hold water.
Earlier this year, federal public sector unions expressed concern about this issue. The president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada said, “[This] results in higher costs and lower quality services for Canadians, less transparency, less accountability and the loss of institutional knowledge and skills”.
As the sponsor of the bill said, on the one hand, there is a shortage of workers and, on the other hand, we are paying two people to do the same job. I agree with him. It is a bit ridiculous.
It is ridiculous and outrageous that the Liberal government spent $11.8 billion on subcontracts in 2021. It is now 2023, and I am sure the situation has not gotten any better. All I have to say is “McKinsey.” I will leave it at that. I think people who are listening still understand that while the abuse and waste continue, so does the preferential treatment for Liberal friends.
The Conservative Party is the only party that can implement this, because history has shown that the current Liberal government does not necessarily respect the majority of the House. Many private members' bills that were supported by a majority of the House have still not been implemented by this government. That is a lack of respect for democracy. That is the Liberal government. Meanwhile, Canadians would have benefited from all of those bills that parliamentarians had a chance to introduce because of the lottery system for private members' bills. I will come back to that another time.
The Conservatives support a united Canada and are in favour of a fairer and simpler tax system for all Canadians. We want to simplify the lives of Quebeckers, who are the only ones who have to file two tax returns. Today is April 18, my daughter Anne-Frédérique's birthday. I want to take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday, but I also want to say that, on April 18, Quebeckers and Canadians across the country have to complete their tax returns. In Quebec, they have to file two returns. Does the Liberal government not trust Quebeckers? I am not sure. Why, in 2023, are Quebeckers still required to file two income tax returns?
In closing, I simply want to say that in this chamber only the Conservative Party of Canada can establish a single tax return to improve Quebeckers' quality of life.
I would have liked to take questions. Unfortunately, in accordance with procedure, there are none.
1118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on a very important issue. The Canada Revenue Agency has demonstrated, particularly over the last few years, just how valuable it is to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I can understand why the Bloc would move this piece of legislation, but it is legislation I personally cannot support. This is primarily because the Bloc has underestimated what the CRA actually does for all of us, no matter where we live in the nation.
All one really needs to do is look at their annual tax forms and other things that I will get into shortly. However, I would like to emphasize the pandemic. When the worldwide pandemic came upon us, the CRA and professional civil servants stepped up to the plate in a significant way. Through the CRA, we were able to support Canadians when they needed to be supported. During a pandemic, something that was virtually unheard of for generations, people needed to get the funds that were necessary in order to pay for the food on their tables, utility bills, mortgage bills and so forth. I would suggest that the role the CRA played in providing direct support to the people of Canada was second to no other, whether a non-profit or government agency. Even today, we are looking to the CRA to wind up what has taken place through the many different programs that it was ultimately responsible for.
If it were up to members of the Bloc party, and unfortunately even some Conservative members whom I have heard debate this issue, the CRA would not be necessary. They would rather have a system where if a province wants to be independent with its own revenue collection, it would be allowed to do so. I do not think that Canada needs that.
I think of the people in Shawinigan and the surrounding area, with the thousands of good, middle-class jobs in that region. I wonder to what degree members of the Bloc have even considered those individuals and the impact this legislation would have on them, from an individual point of view. From a national perspective, we know that the Bloc does not really care about the whole idea of Canada as one nation when looking at the CRA, even today after the pandemic.
In debating legislation, I talked a great deal about budget 2023. One of the initiatives in that budget is the grocery rebate, which is actually being administered by the CRA. When we put it in perspective, we are coming out of a pandemic, during which we were very dependent on the CRA. We are virtually out of the pandemic now but dealing with inflation. Once again, we are turning to the CRA in order to provide direct support for Canadians in every region of the country. It is enabling us to alleviate some of the concerns that people have with respect to inflation.
That is not to mention the Canada child benefit. Somewhere between $9 million and possibly $10 million is going to Winnipeg North every month from the Canada child benefit. That is an incredible amount of money that is going to support children, and the CRA plays an important role in that.
However, surely for only political reasons, the Bloc wants to get rid of the CRA footprint in the province of Quebec. Those jobs in the Chicoutimi and Shawinigan area do not matter to the Bloc. The programs and services at the CRA that have been there during, after and even prior to the pandemic do not concern members of the Bloc.
At the end of the day, whether their votes are related to international tax evasion, providing services to Canadians or providing good-quality jobs, I would encourage all members to vote against this piece of legislation.
644 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the line of what the member said was the truth. We heard a sense of the truth from the member when he indicated that really what this is about is separating from Canada. That is what seems to be the primary motivation for Bloc members in making their presentation, if we listened to what the member was suggesting. I would like to hear the logistical arguments on why it would be in Canada's best interest as a nation to do what the Bloc is proposing without a separatist bias.
Every province and territory has separatists who live in them. However, if we listened to what the member was articulating, it was not about the logic behind the bill. Are we to say that every separatist in every province is saying they should have their own taxation, or that they should forget about OAS and they want their own OAS program? I suspect the separatists inside this chamber would say they do not want a national OAS program.
I beg to differ. I would suggest that with the OAS supplements, GIS and many other programs that are out there, all Canadians in every region of our country benefit from them. The Bloc has failed to demonstrate why it is in Canada's best interest, including the province of Quebec, and why there is an argument to be made for a single system that is solely based on the province of Quebec versus Canada.
I believe the Liberal caucus is open to the arguments, but not with the bias that I heard demonstrated by the former speaker who last addressed the chamber. I believe in the distinct nature and uniqueness of the province of Quebec, and I think there is a great deal of sympathy in terms of how we can recognize that in many different forms. However, in no way was that demonstrated in the debate on the introduction of the bill, particularly by the Bloc member who spoke previously.
I suggest that the bill, before going to committee, needs to be looked at again. At the end of the day, I am somewhat concerned about how the Conservative Party is placing itself on this legislation. I hope it is not an appeal to garner support from the Bloc side.
I think we need to take a look at Canada and the services it provides. If there are better ways we can provide those services, then we should look at those. However, it does not mean that we start taking apart Canada, whether it is separatists in one province or another, which is their ultimate goal and the purpose of the legislation as it was implied in the previous speaker's comments.
458 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have my trinket with me. I hope I do not show it off too much tonight.
I would like to go back to Groundhog Day. I loved that movie. In fact, I feel like I just relived Groundhog Day while listening to my NDP colleague speak.
I am the member for Jonquière, and the tax centre at issue is in my riding. I remember how in 2019, the former member for Jonquière, an NDP member, said that there would never be a single tax return, so there would not be any job losses. At the same time, however, the leader and deputy leader of the NDP were telling the national media that they respected Quebec and wanted Quebec to have as much autonomy as possible. They wanted the single tax return to go through.
It was Groundhog Day for the NDP as they talked out of both sides of their mouths. They were trying to charm Quebec by acknowledging its political autonomy, but the member for Jonquière was being told to say that it would not happen. They were saying one thing in Jonquière and another in Montreal. That is not Groundhog Day. Back home, we would call that plain old hypocrisy. However, I would not go that far. That was just a friendly update for my friend and colleague from the NDP.
I would like to come back to the member for La Prairie's fantastic introduction, which made me realize something. It often happens that the member for La Prairie makes me see the light about something. In his introduction, he talked about the genesis of the single tax return and, in doing so, he recapped the reasons that led to Confederation. I want to add a layer. The member for La Prairie forgot one small detail.
The reason for the birth of Canada, and what motivated the fathers of Confederation, was the desire to build a railway, of course. They wanted to do business from coast to coast. They had a stake in a railway company and figured that if they wanted to build a railway, why not unite?
Some countries arise as a result of a quest for emancipation. Take, for example, the United States and “We, the people”. The birth of the United States was a quest for emancipation. Other countries were created for business considerations. They said to themselves, why not build a railway?
I think this is quite important. The member for La Prairie told us that, and I think it is important because this is one of the key points about the single income tax return. The only political entity that is still trying to develop through a quest for emancipation is Quebec. There is a link here with the single income tax return.
Listen carefully. I will not shock anyone, but everyone will see the inescapable logic in what I have to say. I often do this with my girlfriend. When she says something to me, I want to know why. I want to know where she is coming from when we have a disagreement. Similarly, I want to find out what is behind the federal government's refusal to relieve taxpayers and business owners from having to file two tax returns.
What is the Liberal government's motivation for not wanting to save $425 million a year?
The answer is quite simple, and the member for La Prairie gave us part of it. It is the fear that the government would be sending a message to Quebec that Quebec is capable of managing itself as a nation. What really scares the Liberal government is the possibility that Quebec might prove that it is capable of managing itself. It is the fear that my nation might take another step towards political autonomy.
It has always been that way. Quebeckers did not want a railway; they wanted political autonomy. The other side is all about business, so our interests are not aligned. We will come back to that later.
The first major stumbling block that prevents us from being on the same page as either my NDP colleagues or members of the Liberal government is not concern about jobs. It is their fear of giving Quebec any kind of political autonomy. Doing so would show that Quebec is capable of governing itself as a nation. That is what worries them.
The Conservatives did things hastily in committee. Fear is also why they abstained from voting in committee. This would give Quebec a degree of autonomy. They can say yes in a roundabout way and then change their tune when it is time to take action. That is what we are seeing with the new Conservative leader, who now has no choice but to say he will not support Bills 21 and 96.
If we look carefully at the situation, we see that all of the parties in Ottawa have a centralizing vision, and that no party truly wants to recognize Quebec, which has unique characteristics and makes different choices. They do not want Quebec to have a single tax return.
That brings us to the strategy that the NDP and the Liberal Party use when it comes to self-government. It makes me think of Robert Charlebois's 1969 Paris tour entitled À soir on fait peur au monde, or tonight we scare people. I encourage everyone to listen to it. This strategy works all the time. I remember how Jean Chrétien said that if Quebec decided to separate, it would definitely not be able to get any more oranges. Florida would not sell oranges to Quebec because it only sold them to Canada.
The same thing is happening here. This evening, we are talking about a single tax return and they are fearmongering. If Quebec gets a single tax return, then jobs will be lost. That is the argument that I hear every time we talk about a single tax return. However, that did not stop us.
I—along with the member for Joliette, who introduced the bill in the previous Parliament, and my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—looked into this situation, and we went to meet with workers at the tax centre in my riding of Jonquière. Not only did we go to meet them, but we also commissioned a study to get an overview of federal public service employment in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. In looking at the results, it is clear that the government's motivation for maintaining public service jobs makes the government look bad.
The first observation is that Quebec pays approximately 20% of the CRA's budget but has only 12% of the jobs. That alone is blatantly unfair. Quebec has only 11% of the full-time jobs and only 12% of CRA jobs. Again, that is blatantly unfair.
The study we commissioned shows that there was serious job growth tied to the federal public service in the 2000s. In Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, we are short 1,100 federal public service jobs to be in the Canadian average. We are already below acceptable levels, so trying to scare people by saying that they will lose their public service jobs is just stupid.
A constituent who was hired by CRA during the pandemic approached me recently. She is happy to work for CRA, but she told me that she was told when she was hired that her position would become bilingual. Since she is not bilingual, but a francophone, her contract will end.
This person who processes CRA files will not get a permanent position because she is francophone. The federal public service is currently falling apart. We experience that as MPs every day. Whether we are talking about employment insurance, immigration or any other service the government offers, there is a severe shortage of workers. Then they take a francophone and tell her that because she is not bilingual she will not be able to keep her job.
If I were a Liberal member, I would be a lot more outraged about that than about the idea that a single tax return could result in job losses. We all know that, through attrition or by reassigning these people elsewhere in the public service, it is possible to make sure they keep their jobs.
The truth is that the government is deathly afraid of Quebec gaining greater autonomy.
1420 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to point out that it is February 1, and I would like to wish everyone in this country a happy Black History Month.
Sometimes my math skills are called into question, but, if my calculations are right, tomorrow will be February 2. Now, February 2 is Groundhog Day. I feel like I am reliving Groundhog Day a day ahead of time. I will probably repeat the speech I gave in 2019, 2020, and 2021 after we consider an identical bill in committee. It seems that people are having trouble hearing testimony from certain witnesses.
Groundhog Day is that movie where comedian Bill Murray wakes up every morning and relives the same day. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, we are reliving the same discussion with the same arguments and debates, during which people came to tell us that it does not work, that it does not make sense.
It is not a bad principle, and it was even adopted at the NDP convention in 2018. The resolution was twofold. The first part involved a single tax return for Quebeckers. Because of historic absurdities, war efforts and jurisdictional squabbles, Quebeckers ended up being the only parties in the Canadian federation who have to complete two tax returns. Obviously, no one likes paperwork and no one likes waste. Everyone wants things to be faster and easier. Yes, everyone agrees on that, but implementing the single tax return would have an impact on real people, families and the regions of Quebec.
That is why the NDP resolution had a second part. We agree with the principle of a single tax return, but there must not be a human cost. Workers should not have to pay the price. People should not end up in a tough spot because we made a decision that we thought was good in theory. Yes, at first glance, completing one tax return instead of two seems logical and it seems to make life easier for everyone.
I will come back to employment, but I think the first thing that is important to mention in this debate is that this is not the 1980s. Back then, in Quebec, everyone went to the credit union to pick up the stack of Quebec tax forms and the stack of Canadian tax forms in February and March. People would take them home, go through all the pages and fill out the document by hand. After that, they had to get their T4s and tax receipts. Then, they would take the other form, fill in all the numbers by hand, and finally mail their provincial income tax return to Quebec and their federal income tax return to Ottawa. It was a pain, and it is unfair that, historically, Quebeckers were the only ones to be stuck doing this. It is unfortunate.
It is now 2023 and the situation has changed. People do not go to their credit unions to pick up their forms. We have recent data that speaks to that. Most professionals told us that, since 2016, at least 60% of Quebeckers' income tax returns are prepared by accountants. The remaining 40% are completed by the individuals themselves. Of this 40%, 75% are completed with online software.
Completing an online form is quite simple. The taxpayer fills out the return and the online software puts the information in the right boxes, with the small blue flower on one side and the small red leaf on the other. This has practically no impact on people's lives. It is done automatically. The taxpayer enters their amounts, social insurance number, address, charitable donation receipts, and political donations, if any, just once and then it is sent by email with one click to Quebec City and to Ottawa. They just have to enter the information once, and the rest is done automatically. The deductions are calculated automatically.
The fact is, between 10% and 12% of Quebeckers complete two paper income tax returns. That is one in 10. This measure will not change a single thing for 90% of people. I expect that 10% to 12% to shrink from year to year because the trend is clear. Fewer and fewer tax returns are being done on paper, and more and more are being done online.
This solution is very appealing at first glance because it appears to simplify people's lives. The NDP supports that, but we realize the impact in terms of helping people and simplifying their lives will diminish over time. Where it will have a definite impact is on job losses in the regions in Quebec. That is what we heard from the member for La Prairie, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance in 2021.
During an exchange with the member for Joliette, the member for La Prairie said that only 44% of the 5,300 people at the Canada Revenue Agency in Quebec are really useful. According to the member for La Prairie, only 44% of the 5,300 workers are truly useful. That is right in the Standing Committee on Finance evidence. He comes along and says that the other half are technically useless. I would like him to tell the other 3,000 employees that they are useless.
Is that the Bloc Québécois's vision for regional economic development and respect for workers? That is really bad. The member for La Prairie went on to say, “This means that 2,332 of the 5,300 people would remain employed”. It is not hard to figure out that this means 3,000 people would lose their jobs and their pay. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the member for La Prairie said, and anyone can read it in the committee evidence. They are prepared to sacrifice 3,000 jobs in the regions. That is 3,000 families for whom a paycheque is far more important than this symbolic political trinket. We must keep moving forward.
We, in the NDP, did our homework. We met with these workers' representatives. We met with people from the Quebec chapter of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, who are affiliate members of the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec.
They said that, despite what they have been told, there is no guarantee that they will be sent somewhere else to work, that they will not lose their jobs and that things will not be complicated. Issues related to training, qualifications, workplace and organization of work led us to try to learn more and to ask questions. I was on the ground, visiting the tax centres in Shawinigan and Jonquière. I met with people and talked to them. It is very clear that, to them, this would mean a loss of employment. There are no guarantees. They do not believe in wishful thinking.
While it is true that service is sometimes lacking in the federal government, the federal public service has hired 35,000 people in the last two years. We are talking about 3,000 other people, but those 3,000 people are not 10% of the 35,000. They are an additional 10% on top of the 35,000. What do we do with them? The Bloc members do not have an answer. All they are saying is that things will work out, someone will find a place for them. No one believes that. The witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee said that there is no clear plan or guarantee. These 3,000 workers deserve respect. We want them to continue to work so they can pay their bills, pay the rent and buy groceries in their area. Surely we are not going to put their lives at risk for the sake of some political trinket for the Bloc Québécois to show off.
1334 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑239, which deals with a promise that the Conservative Party itself proposed in the summer of 2018.
We also moved a motion on February 5, 2019, here in the House, on this clear and legitimate request from Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly, specifically to cut the paperwork burden on Quebeckers significantly by allowing them to file a single tax return.
On April 24, 2021, all of my Conservative Party colleagues voted for this measure in Bill C‑224. The single income tax return responds to a request that is dear to the hearts of the people of Lévis—Lotbinière and all Quebeckers. All Quebeckers are required to file two tax returns as soon as they start earning an income, even if they have not reached the age of majority. This noble and legitimate request will save a lot of time and money for Quebec families and all Quebeckers. It is important to note that Quebec is the only province in Canada that still has to take on this onerous task.
Whether it relates to this bill or any other measure that would be good for the Quebec nation and the entire Canadian population, nothing seems to make the Liberal government lift a finger since it came to power in 2015, because saving time and money is simply not one of its values and is not in its DNA.
Let me give a real-life example of when all my children were still living under the same roof at home. At the time, it meant 14 individual tax returns for one house, plus two returns for my small farm. Think about it, that is 16 tax returns under one roof. That is a lot of repetitive and counterproductive work forced on families, students and young workers, who are eager to be active in the workforce, which is in need of labour now more than ever.
True to their values, Conservatives have always been committed to simplifying the lives of Quebeckers, saving them time and money, and increasing their quality of life.
We cannot shy away from certain words. We are living under a coalition government, and this cronyism between the Liberals and the NDP is disastrous for all Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. This arrangement is damaging our democracy and prevents any good measures from being adopted. We saw proof of this when the NDP and the Liberals voted against Bill C‑224, sealing its fate.
We saw further proof recently with my private member's bill, Bill C‑215, which got a majority but may not be adopted at third reading because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are still refusing to give it a royal recommendation. I would like to remind members that my bill would extend EI benefits for people with serious illness to 52 weeks, a fix for outdated legislation that has not been amended since 1971.
There are a lot of good bills here, including the one before us now, Bill C‑239, which is perfectly valid. However, we have a major problem in the House after eight years of Liberal incompetence that is now making itself felt across Canada and in every sector.
Our Canada is broken. It will never be like it was before. We are experiencing the repercussions of lack of leadership and political will to bring positive, long-lasting change to the lives of people in Canada.
Under the Liberals, life has become very expensive. Inflation, taxes, crime and drug deaths are on the rise. Honest citizens like hunters and farmers are being attacked and penalized by Bill C‑21. We have a Liberal government that will do anything to help its cronies get funding and contracts in exchange for a $500 ticket to a dinner. The Liberals managed to legalize marijuana and now want to decriminalize hard drugs. However, when it comes to helping honest people who work hard, day in and day out, people who are responsible, or people who are seriously ill and simply deserve our support, there is no danger of Liberal favouritism. There is no danger of giving these honest people a free ride. We hear more than a simple “no”. It is a resounding “no” to anyone with common sense and logic, and this is all currently endorsed by the NDP.
This government is really old, worn out and outdated, not to mention fundamentally incompetent.
I remember all too well the Liberal argument against adopting a single tax return in Quebec. I can already see the return of the stale rhetoric of the Minister of National Revenue—we just heard it. The House has already heard responses using the simplistic argument that having a single tax return would result in massive job losses, which is unfounded and, moreover, would happen at a time when there is a dire need for labour across Canada.
I would also like to remind the minister and my colleagues that the number of public service jobs has increased by 32% from 2015. My constituents write to me to tell me that they can no longer make ends meet, have no savings, are using food banks to feed themselves and their family, can no longer afford their rent, have to work when sick or, even worse, have to declare bankruptcy. Like them, I am very worried about our future and that of our children and future generations.
The aspirations of Quebeckers are eroding after eight years of Liberal incompetence. The single tax return that has been a Conservative election promise since 2018 will still not see the light of day, I am afraid. The NDP has to go back to being an opposition party and stop propping up the Liberal government. We all know that the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs are not the ones who can make the change that Canada really needs.
I am proud that the people in my riding, Lévis—Lotbinière, trust me and the leadership of the Conservative Party to put an end to the Liberal incompetence that we have seen for eight years now—eight years too many. The Conservatives are the best equipped to work for a more productive Quebec, a stronger Quebec, a richer Quebec, a Quebec that is a partner in Canada's success, a Quebec that is proud of its culture and heritage, a Quebec that is worthy of the French language, a Quebec that is respected by the Conservative Party of Canada for what it has achieved. The Conservative Party is a proud partner in the success of all Canadians from all provinces.
Historically, the Conservatives have said yes to Quebec's requests. We said yes to the construction of the new Champlain Bridge, yes to the future third link in Quebec City, yes to more power over immigration for Quebec and yes to a single tax return. That is more than a promise of change or lip service. It is a real commitment, a promise that I have been keeping every day in the House for 17 years now, along with my Conservative colleagues. I say yes for Lévis—Lotbinière and yes for Quebec.
1240 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to take part in the debate at second reading of private member's Bill C‑239.
This bill is identical to private member's Bill C‑224, which was introduced and rejected in the previous parliamentary session. By now, hon. members should be quite familiar with the major flaws that resulted in its being rejected. Now that it is once again before us, I feel obligated to use my time to review those flaws.
The bill authorized Quebec or any other province to collect federal personal and corporate income tax on behalf of the Government of Canada. Our government has always recognized that the purpose of this bill, which is to find ways to simplify income tax returns and reduce the compliance burden on Quebec taxpayers, is appealing. We all share that goal.
However, the way the bill seeks to achieve that raises grave concerns about effectiveness, equity, efficiency and value for both taxpayers and governments, including those in Quebec.
At the forefront of these concerns are the serious negative impacts the bill would have on the employment situation of Canada Revenue Agency employees working in Quebec, as well as their communities as a whole.
At committee stage in the previous Parliament, we heard from expert witnesses and stakeholders such as a representative of the Union of Taxation Employees, who warned that “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” and that “the vast majority of jobs that would be lost are held by people living in Quebec who pay taxes there and greatly contribute to the province's economic activity.” As the witness concluded, this “would be devastating, especially for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie regions. The CRA is the biggest employer in the Mauricie region and one of the biggest in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, along with the mining sector.”
These alarming findings are consistent with the CRA's projections, which show that the transfer of the federal administration of Quebec's income tax could jeopardize approximately 6,000 jobs in the 14 CRA offices in Quebec. The transfer would also affect employees in many offices outside of Quebec, such as the office in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, and offices in Ontario, which also process income tax returns.
We also learned in the previous Parliament that this bill would likely result in higher costs for taxpayers. The existing tax collection agreements produce efficiency gains that result in cost savings for taxpayers. The transfer of the administration of several provinces and territories to one tax administrator, namely the federal government, creates economies of scale and reduces the administrative burden on each taxpayer. Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing does the exact opposite.
This was confirmed by the testimony of a Canada Revenue Agency official when the bill was being studied in committee in the previous Parliament. As she noted, “The required integration between both organizations' processes and technology infrastructures would result in additional expenses. The fixed costs related to the functioning and significant investments in infrastructure by the agency to serve all Canadians will not decrease with such a transfer.” The CRA official confirmed that such a decision would increase costs. She stated, “At a minimum, our estimate at this time is around $800 million.”
This was corroborated by the testimony of a representative of The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, who pointed out that “the numbers don't add up. There are no savings or efficiencies to be gained either for Quebec taxpayers or for those in the rest of Canada”, he added. This same union official then went on to point out that “the most efficient and cost-effective way for Quebeckers to have a single tax return would be for them to ask the CRA to administer all tax collection.” This opinion is shared by the representative for the Union of Taxation Employees. That is not to say that we want to go in that direction.
As the CRA official clearly indicated at committee, the question should not be whether Canada should be in charge of Quebec's taxes or whether Quebec should be in charge of Canada's taxes. The question should be: how can we simplify taxes for residents of Quebec?
Our government completely agrees. That is why we will continue to work and engage with Revenu Québec, with whom we have long had a productive and collaborative relationship, on finding ways to simplify the tax return and reduce the burden on Quebec taxpayers. We will continue to work with Quebec and the other provinces to make things more efficient.
Our concerns about the bill go even further. This bill also raises fears about Canada's ability to meet its obligations under international tax conventions and agreements in effect that state that the Minister of National Revenue is the competent authority in Canada.
Canada has more than a hundred tax conventions and agreements of this nature and renegotiating them could take years and considerable resources, with no guarantee of favourable results. Our international partners may, for example, not agree to change these provisions or be prepared to interact with two or more distinct tax administrations. This situation could in return have serious consequences on our capacity to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance, which relies on tax information exchange agreements and treaties.
Those are the important considerations, and Canadians expect us to take them into account. I want to commend my parliamentary colleagues for doing so when assessing this bill in the previous Parliament and for having rejected this bill.
As we clearly stated, our government is open to improving tax administration to ensure the best possible results for all Canadians in terms of fairness, efficiency and value for taxpayers and governments, including those of Quebec.
We will continue to work with Revenu Québec to find ways to simplify tax returns and reduce the compliance burden on Quebec taxpayers. This will ensure a better harmonization of our respective tax administrations and make it easier for Quebec taxpayers to complete their tax returns.
We are always willing to improve the situation. However, the preponderance of the evidence clearly shows that the bill before us will do the opposite.
1083 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, 3,000 is not even 10% of 35,000.
First of all, this can be done over several years.
Second, I think the hon. member, who sits with us in the House, understands when the government repeatedly tells us that it cannot provide services because there are not enough public servants. It turns out that it is giving all the work to McKinsey.
I do not think we need to dig any further to realize that, although the public service has increased in numbers, it still is not big enough. It does not take a genius to figure out that when there is a labour shortage that translates into a shortage of services, it means more workers need to be hired. However, when there is a labour shortage, it is difficult to turn to the labour market because we are at full employment and everyone is chasing the same people. Employers are even putting on shows to attract people to come and work for them.
We are not suggesting that 3,000 workers should be laid off. We are not using 20th century language. We want to reallocate these 3,000 workers to where they will be even more useful, and it will not cost anything because they are already being paid. Who can oppose that?
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his persistence on this one issue, which keeps coming up.
I would note that, in 2021, he told the Standing Committee on Finance that 2,332 of the Canada Revenue Agency's 5,300 employees in Quebec would remain employed. That means 3,000 people would lose their jobs.
The NDP cares deeply about what happens to workers, especially unionized workers. My colleague mentioned the labour shortage and the unemployment rate. That is true in general in society, but what about the federal public service?
In 2015, there were 260,000 federal public servants. In 2020, there were 300,000, and, in 2022, there were 335,000. That means 35,000 people were hired in the space of two years. The NDP is happy about that because we want good public services and we want them to get even better. However, given that the government just hired 35,000 people in the past two years, where is it going to put those 3,000 people?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really like my colleague.
The last time we worked on this bill, let us just say that the Conservatives were not too enthusiastic about it. In the end, they abstained from voting in committee and then supported us. Maybe the Conservatives are not as convinced about the merits of the single tax return as the Bloc Québécois. However, I have to admit that this time, the Conservatives are on the right side of history, and I applaud them.
Clearly, I want the bill to be passed right away. I believe we have all the reasons and arguments in favour of doing so, and I do not see why we would delay. I think it is time to take action. We are people of goodwill, and we can start fixing this problem right away.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech and the historical background.
History belongs to those who tell and write it, but my colleague forgot to say that the only federalist party in the House capable of taking power already promised a single tax return during two elections, in 2019 and 2021.
Can my colleague tell me whether he trusts the Conservative Party to help Quebeckers get their due? Will he work with us during our next mandate, which may begin in 2023?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions.
First, there is a reality in Quebec that does not exist in the other provinces. Quebec is the only place in Canada where people have to complete two tax returns. We are not proposing that the CRA be dismantled. It will still exist in Quebec, but it would simply no longer collect any personal or business income tax. That is all. It would still have other things to do.
That being said, we are the only ones who have to complete two tax returns. My colleague is talking about situations in Canada where there is only one tax return. I think that is great. That is what I want.
As for the rest, I honestly did not really understand what he was getting at.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
