Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 46 - 60 of 106
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a pre-election speech full of partisanship. It is actually quite interesting.
I would like to say one thing before I begin my speech.
As the NDP deputy critic for the environment, I must point out that the announcement about an endangered species in the St. Lawrence River, the copper redhorse, did not get the attention it should have from the Liberal government's Minister of Environment. Biologists were forced to admit that this government is not very serious. The proposals being made do not reflect the fact that we really need to protect an endangered species.
I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Joliette. There may be a misunderstanding at report stage. This is really important to the NDP. It is part of our tradition. We generally believe that bills should not be killed in committee after being supported at second reading. It was therefore for the sake of consistency that my colleague voted to bring this bill back to the House. We thought that made sense. While the Conservatives were filibustering and trying to block the bill in committee, we voted for it in principle. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby did what needed to be done, in the progressive tradition of the New Democrats, to respect that basic principle and bring the bill back to the House.
This does not mean that we were reassured by the work in committee and by what we heard there. I will come back to that in a few minutes. It was a Bloc member, a colleague of the member for Joliette, who gave us the final argument, confirming that there was no way to be sure that this bill would guarantee and protect very important jobs in the regions, particularly in Mauricie and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
I wanted to set the record straight at the outset.
I am going to back up a bit. I too want to briefly go back to the Second World War. In 1941, the provinces administered income taxes, but in a concerted war effort, there was a willingness to give the federal government the means to take action, which was only natural. Then there was an attempt and willingness to hold on to that power. Once one has a certain power I imagine it is hard to let go of it. However, in 1954, the Government of Quebec reinstated a provincial tax.
Shortly after, in 1955-56, an agreement was reached to ensure that Quebec taxpayers would not pay a higher percentage in taxes than Canadians, who paid only to Ottawa. Then, Ottawa started providing subsidies or payments proportional to the amounts that were given to the different provinces. That system seems to work well, but as a result Quebeckers have long been the only citizens to have to file two tax returns. I will come back later to the modern definition of two tax returns, since many things have changed since 1955-56. Sometimes it is good to go over it again.
We agreed, in principle. Before the Conservatives took on that position, the NDP had adopted a resolution at its convention, stating that we agreed with having a single tax return for Quebeckers. We believe that the Government of Quebec should have that autonomy. The resolution had two parts, however. The member for Joliette will recall my previous speeches, in which I said that we agreed with the principle, but that this measure must not come at the expense of the public servants working in Quebec's regions. Otherwise, we would just be trading four quarters for a dollar. We would be giving a government an additional power, but penalizing thousands of families.
We therefore voted in favour of the bill at second reading. The bill would be sent to committee. We did our homework before going to committee. We met with people working at Revenue Canada tax centres, to ask them how the work could be rearranged and what additional tasks these employees could take on. We need to come up with a game plan and make some guarantees that these people will not be left high and dry. Half of them would maybe be saved, while the other half will have to look for work.
It is much more complicated than it seems, as demonstrated once again in committee. It is not as easy as waving a magic wand and saying that now that something is written in the law, it will undoubtedly happen. The Bloc Québécois lent this magic wand to the Conservatives for a few months, until the Conservatives also realized that it could not be done. Today, it is rather amusing to see the Conservatives listening so carefully to the federal public service unions. They are not quite so attentive when they are in power, but for now, they seem to have listened to reason and understood that people cannot be trained, be reassigned and have their work reorganized in that manner.
For example, assigning people to fight tax havens would be a good thing, but it is not at all the same type of work, and the skills and requirements are different. This is magical thinking. Workers in the sector told the committee as much, and I believe that out of respect for these workers and their families, we should really be listening to them, because they are the experts. The NDP did its homework before going to committee, but we continued to listen to them.
We heard other things in committee too. For example, the Bloc Québécois claims that tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars can be saved with nary a job lost. It is a new magic wand, and I would sure like to know how that works. Basically, the money pays for labour and wages. If they are claiming savings of hundreds of millions of dollars, they cannot also say that all those people will stay employed. That makes no sense. It is like saying the government is going to cut taxes and increase spending. It is exactly the same contradiction.
During an exchange with the member for Joliette, the member for La Prairie said that only “44% of the 5,300 people are really useful”. That is right in the Standing Committee on Finance evidence. He just said 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. They are prepared to sacrifice 3,000 families because they have sunk their teeth into this and are not willing to let go.
There is something Bloc Québécois does not realize. In addition to hurting workers, is not having to fill out two paper tax returns really that useful nowadays? The reality is that hardly anyone fills out their tax returns at home using two forms they picked up at the credit union, right by the door, like they did 15 or 20 years ago.
Most professionals say that, since 2016, the majority of Quebeckers, at least 60%, have their tax returns done by chartered accountants and that 40% still complete their own tax returns. Of that 40%, 75% complete their tax return using online software. When people complete the online form, they are actually completing an income tax return, and the online software puts the information in the appropriate boxes for the little blue sheet or the little red sheet. This hardly has any impact on people's lives anymore. We are talking about 10% or 12% of Quebeckers who still complete two copies of their income tax return on paper.
Is that worth sacrificing 3,000 good jobs? Is that worth making 3,000 families suffer? That percentage drops every year. In a few years, hardly anybody will be filing a paper tax return on their own without the help of a professional.
For all of these reasons, the NDP will not support this bill because it does not serve the interests of Quebeckers and workers.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-03-24 19:24 [p.5217]
Mr. Speaker, we spoke about proverbs earlier. As I listened to my Conservative Party colleague and my NDP colleague, it made me think of these words from Falardeau: “We always go too far for people who are going nowhere”. That neatly sums up how change scares people like them, even if it is for the better. They get scared the minute we start talking about change.
The Conservatives, who are traditionally in favour of the idea of a single tax return, introduced and debated a motion in the House in 2019. They based it on a motion that was unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly on May 15, 2018. I know because I was the one who moved that motion in the National Assembly.
The Conservatives spent an entire day debating that motion. Now they are telling us that they no longer support it, because they know the Liberals do not want a single tax return. They want to kill the bill before the Liberals do. That is a great way to play politics—do the dirty work because they know someone else will do it anyway. Are we here to make life better for people, or are we here to play politics for the sole purpose of protecting our jobs?
While the Conservatives know that a single tax return would be better for everyone and for all Quebeckers, it would also be a win for the Bloc Québécois. The last thing the Conservatives want is for us to prove once again that the Bloc is useful to the public. That is the problem.
They would rather see people continue to spend money unnecessarily on two tax returns, and see public servants continue to do the same work twice. However, those public servants could be freed up to do other things. We never said they should be fired. We said that, since they are already being paid, why not use these competent individuals to do something else in the public service at a time when there is a shortage of workers? Am I the only one here who understands that? It is obvious.
According to a scientific study by the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, known as IRAI, the public service would save $287 million. There it is in black and white, backed with evidence, and yet, it is being opposed.
A hospital like Hôpital Pierre-Le Gardeur costs $205 million to build. That is what the savings could amount to for Quebec. With that money, we could build at least one hospital a year, which would improve people's health. That is what we want to do for people.
It makes no sense to have officials doing the same work at two different locations. This does not mean that jobs in the regions will be eliminated. Those people could do other things. We know that the public service is understaffed. There is a shortage of workers. It is looking for people right now. The pandemic will not last forever.
The Conservatives just cannot understand that. They no longer know what to say and are mixing up the dates and figures. They swear that they did not see it that way. You are either for the single tax return or against it. It is like being pregnant: Either you are pregnant or you are not; there is no in between.
Sure, we will have to sign agreements with the other countries, because we will become tax collectors. That is what the Conservatives need to understand, but are not able to. As soon as we try to do something good for Quebec, they oppose it.
Quebeckers support the fight against climate change, but they do not even understand what it is.
Quebeckers support protecting supply management, but they oppose it because they would rather sell their western beef. They voted against supply management. That is a fact.
There is a consensus in Quebec on medical assistance in dying. They wanted to block it. Nothing ever changes with the Conservatives.
This, here, is a smart bill that has been fine-tuned. We have been thinking about it for decades. We did this in 1991 with GST and QST. We managed to set up two collectors, two sales taxes with different parameters. We have done it before, and this is no different. Revenu Québec does it, and it saves us more than $190 million a year.
I see that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has steam coming out of his ears yet again. This happens every time we try to do something good for Quebec. He is unrecognizable and says things that make no sense. He is saying that people no longer file paper tax returns. That is obvious. Does he really think that we do not know that?
The IRAI estimates we would save $99 million for businesses and $39 million for people who file their tax returns at home. These figures took into account that people use their computers to file.
A scientific study by François Vaillancourt has shown that it takes a person in Quebec 10% more time to file their taxes because they have two returns to fill out. It does not say that it took 50% more time, but 10% more time, because we know that people are not filing paper returns. By saving that 10%, businesses would save $99 million and individuals would save $39 million, for a total of $425 million in savings for Quebec. That is what is driving us.
The National Assembly of Quebec wants this. The Premier of Quebec wants this. Business people want this. Even accountants want this. The Conservatives told the Premier of Quebec that they supported it. They told Quebeckers that they supported it. However, they just did an about-face yet again with explanations that make no sense.
At some point, we have to be here for the right reasons. For our part, we are here for the right reasons. We are in politics for our people. We respond to the aspirations of Quebec. We are here when Quebec needs something. We are here for a single tax return. We are here for climate change. We were here to prevent medical assistance in dying from being at the mercy of the religious right in the Conservative Party. We were here and we will continue to be here.
I was happy to be a Bloc member because the Bloc is the only party that truly stands up for Quebeckers. The Conservative Party is unable to look Quebeckers in the eyes and tell them that they stand up for them. I do not know how Conservative members from Quebec can look at themselves in the mirror. They are completely out of touch with the reality of Quebeckers. Quebeckers are no fools.
The same goes for the NDP. It is no better. It said it would vote in favour, but then it messed everything up by voting against in the end. As for jobs, now they are being cut because of this drive to optimize the public service. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has obviously never run a company. The idea is not to fire these people. It is to find something more constructive for them to do so they can serve the public even better for the same pay. Who could be against that?
We have reached this point because the Conservative Party cannot figure out what to focus on. It is even using unions to justify its actions. That really takes the cake. The Conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying to explain an untenable position.
Before I go to bed at night, I look at myself in the mirror, I look at my constituents, I talk to them. Last weekend, people who used to vote Conservative told me they could not imagine the Conservatives being against the single tax return. I told them that if they were in the House, they would have other reasons not to vote for the Conservatives anymore.
I can say that we, the Bloc Québécois, look voters straight in the eye. I am not embarrassed to say that we will fight tooth and nail for them. We are here for that very reason, and we will be here as long as Quebec is sending money to Ottawa. That is our money, and we are going to make sure that it is managed properly, because the single tax return will pay off for Quebeckers.
That is why members will always find the Bloc Québécois in their path. We will push for this because we can do the math. The only interests we care about are Quebeckers' interests.
View Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, we are trying to do whatever we can to save our businesses and reduce this unprecedented debt.
I have a question for my hon. colleague.
My question is about the Conservative Party's solutions and promises around economies of scale. The member's own leader said it would be a good idea to create economies of scale amounting to a considerable $425 million by switching to a single tax return for Quebec, an idea that has unanimous approval. Why, then, did his party trash the idea at the Standing Committee on Finance?
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Brassard Profile
2021-03-09 10:42 [p.4717]
Madam Speaker, I do not know the circumstances or the context of the discussion at the finance committee, so I do not think I am qualified to speak to that.
The one issue the hon. member did bring forward was the issue of the power of business. I wholeheartedly believe that it will be, as I said in my intervention, the power of Canadian business, the people they employ and the products that they produce, that will propel us out of this, as long as government does not get in the way, and as long as government is allowing regulations, legislation and policy that create investor confidence, both domestically and from foreign investment as well. That includes every sector of the economy, firing on all cylinders, because government supports it.
It is not about reimagining the economy into something of the Prime Minister's idyllic view, but to use those sectors of our economy that have traditionally propelled this country to great wealth, great opportunity and great hope for Canadians. This is what we need to do as a government, and this is a plan that Conservatives are working on and will be providing that option to Canadians as we move forward in the next election.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Yves Perron Profile
2021-02-25 12:50 [p.4537]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Manicouagan.
I will start my speech on a serious note. I heard several people today talking about their party's achievements and saying that we, as an opposition party, are useless. They sound like they are in the middle of an election campaign. We are not in the middle of an election campaign and, today, we are talking about seniors.
I find it revolting that we have not taken decent care of our seniors in the past. It makes no sense. Which reminds me, I need to think before I speak to avoid using unparliamentary language.
In today's motion, our party proposes that the House “recognize that the elderly were most directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic”. Seniors were the most directly affected, and the ones who received the least support. How does that make sense?
People think that seniors were not affected, but many of them work part-time because they are not making enough money. Others lost their sources of income, which were based on long-term investments or savings that have not paid out.
Now that I have spoken about savings, I will speak about income. We must realize that most seniors live on a fixed income, in other words, pension benefits that are either barely indexed or not indexed at all. Consider the ridiculous maximum increase of $1.52 a month for those receiving the maximum amount this year.
Fixed incomes cannot absorb inflation as prices continue to rise. The rent increase is estimated at 4% this year. Food prices will likely rise because of shortages in the farming industry and the fact that farmers are not getting much support.
Consider, too, delivery fees that seniors did not have to pay before and the “COVID-19 fees” some merchants are charging, often out of necessity.
Isolated people are most at risk. Let us not forget that the majority of deaths occurred among seniors. These people are not only more at risk, but live with more fear.
What did we do to help them? Not much.
Our motion also asks the House to “recall that too many of the elderly live in a financially precarious position”. I could quote statistics about the basket of consumer goods and services, but there is a very simple way to understand that the monthly amount of $1,500 is utter nonsense.
When Canada found itself in a state of emergency and the government decided to grant a minimum amount to all those who lost their jobs or were unable to work because of the spread of the virus, we all know what the government decided to give them: $2,000.
That is not what we are asking for today. What we are asking for is an additional $110 for seniors. In 1975, old age security was 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it is 13%. We have allowed this support measure to quietly peter out, bit by bit. Why?
Is it because we take seniors for granted? Is it because their voices are not strong enough to be heard? Is it because they don't have any friends in this government?
The government promised hand on heart, as usual, to help them. After pressuring the government again and again, we finally obtained a one-time payment of $300 for every senior, with an extra $200 for those who receive the guaranteed income supplement. Seniors were also granted a one-time GST and HST credit payment, and that is it.
Financial insecurity for seniors is not a one-time problem that can be addressed by a one-time payment. It requires a basic benefit increase.
I will go back to a word I frequently use when standing up for the agriculture sector: predictability. Seniors need predictability to pay their bills, have a budget and not feel anxious at the end of the month because they do not know if they will have enough money left to eat properly. We are not saying that seniors will run out and buy new cars next week; we are talking about $110 a month.
Let us consider the obscene amounts this country spends on the British Crown. I will not open up that can of worms, and I will not waste time detailing the shameful amounts we give the Crown, but let us think about what $110 a month could do for seniors living at home. I think that is very reasonable.
The problem has existed for a long time. It existed before the pandemic. The people at FADOQ are asking for stability and predictability.
The third part of our motion acknowledges the collective debt that we owe to those who built Quebec and Canada. On March 8, my father will turn 86. I do not want to get emotional, but I would like you to know that he was a lumberjack at 12 years old. How many of us could have done that? He did not have access to education, either. However, the work done by his generation created these opportunities for future generations. Thanks to my father’s generation, Quebec is a better place. Do we not have the moral obligation to provide this generation with decent care?
Fortunately, my father had a good job and a good pension plan, and his finances are a lot easier to manage. However, I keep thinking of those who do not have any money. Every time my father has a major expense, I think how terrible it must be for those who cannot pay for a walker, a wheelchair or home adaptations.
I will stop here, because I am going to get even more emotional.
The fourth part of our motion asks the government, in the next budget, to increase the old age security benefit by $110 a month for those aged 65 and more. I hope that no one in the Conservative Party will say that I cannot do anything for seniors, when they fully intended to increase the retirement age to 67. I await their questions.
Our party is also proposing simple solutions, such as automatic income tax returns for people whose situation does not change. Can we help them instead of making it more difficult and making them fill out 28 forms? People are disadvantaged, and even more so during the pandemic. They are afraid to go out, or simply cannot go out. The community services that usually help them fill out their income tax returns are underfunded and not operating right now.
How about paying a deceased person's pension benefits to a spouse for three months after that person's death? I clearly remember having to repay my mother's benefits after she died. What a way to express condolences. Frankly, I think our society can do better.
We would like to see a tax credit for home adaptations that people can get once the work is done. I could share my own story about this. It can take up to a year for a subsidy to be approved, and people cannot always wait that long before adapting their homes. Sometimes they need it right away. How about making things easy and providing an automatic tax credit for home care?
My colleague from Manicouagan, who will be speaking next, has repeatedly proposed a bill to protect workers' pension plans when businesses go bankrupt. If we are talking about OAS, we also have to talk about protecting pension plans. That is important.
We are asking for a minimum token increase of $110 per month. The Liberals intend to spend $100 billion on their recovery plan, but they do not have the willingness or decency to increase old age pensions by $110 a month. I will refrain from saying what I am really thinking and simply say that I find that appalling.
The government is preparing to spend $100 billion. What will people with incomes of $1,500 a month do with that additional $110? Does the government think that they will put it in a savings account or keep it for later? No. They are going to spend it and help keep the economy running. That is what we need. We need to kick-start the economy. Let us give them the boost they need. The population is aging. This makes no sense.
I appeal to members of the House. Let us look beyond political partisanship. In the debate earlier, some were saying that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this or against that. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois also voted in favour of a bill that does not affect Quebec because it was a sensible measure. We use good judgment. I do not have time to talk about all of the reasons why we voted for that bill right now, but I would like members to ask me about it later.
In the meantime, let us adopt this motion.
View Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.
We have heard a lot today about the financial situation of seniors. I would have liked to have all day to talk about all of the calls my office gets from constituents. Although our riding offices are closed, Internet access is not always great and we are working virtually, I feel compelled to give my speech, which will naturally reiterate everything that we have been calling for for so many years.
Today we are debating the motion moved by my esteemed colleague from Shefford. The members of the Bloc Québécois have always stood up for seniors and always will.
Let us go back in time to the 2019 election campaign, when the Liberals promised to increase old age security benefits by 10% when seniors turn 75, not 65. They reiterated their intention of increasing these benefits in the September 2020 throne speech. We have sadly heard nothing since.
The old age security program is the main vehicle by which the federal government supports seniors by offering people aged 65 and over a minimum income. The two programs are the old age security benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. I think this is well known, but it bears repeating. Taxpayers who are eligible for the goods and services tax credit, the GST credit, are entitled to a one-time payment ranging from $443 to $1,160, with an average payment of $375 for a single person and $510 for a couple. That is not enough in this day and age, in light of the rising cost of living and the impact of the pandemic. It is easy to see.
Of course, supports are welcome in these most difficult times, but they should benefit every member of society, including workers, families, businesses and, of course, seniors. However, these are one-time payments.
What we are asking for in our motion is welcomed by senior groups. We heard in previous speeches that we were giving incorrect information. Here are the facts.
The FADOQ network is the largest seniors' organization in Canada, with 550,000 members, 705 clubs and 16 regional groups, as well as around 17,000 volunteers, which is quite something. Seniors prefer stability and predictability, especially when they have a fixed income. Seniors in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle really feel overlooked. I would be remiss if I did not mention the outrageous cost of Internet access, that is, when it is available at all, which is rarely the case, just as cell coverage is also problematic. There is a huge challenge.
That said, what should the government do? Let me repeat it today for the umpteenth time: The government should invest to provide more financial assistance to all citizens, especially to seniors, through the community services network.
Also, in order to mitigate the risk of people being deprived of the guaranteed income supplement, it should be possible to file an automatic income tax return. A person who fails to file a return loses the supplement. Taxpayers should be able to automatically validate their tax return, without any action needed on their part, as long as the information has not changed in comparison to the previous year.
Ten years ago, I was working as a political assistant for Ms. Deschamps, who sat in this House, and it was a major issue. People who did not act would not receive the supplement. They were not entitled to it. The situation is still the same in 2021.
Quebec's seniors can count on the Bloc Québécois. As the government keeps saying, we will keep working and making progress. Let me talk about that progress.
Twenty years ago, back in 2001, the Bloc called for automatic enrolment in the guaranteed income supplement at 65 based on people's tax returns. We are still calling for that, and we will keep calling for it until it is done.
In 2007, the former member for Laurentides—Labelle toured Quebec, meeting with seniors, groups and associations. Following the tour, a number of findings were formulated, and the Bloc decided to take action by introducing a bill to improve the lives of seniors in Quebec.
In 2009, the National Assembly, under a Liberal government, unanimously called on the federal government to implement the Bloc Québécois's proposals. That is a big deal. Who made that happen? The Bloc Québécois.
Here is some of the real progress that came out of that.
There was automatic renewal for claimants in 2014, as well as automatic enrolment for people on their 65th birthday, which began in 2018. This is in addition to the increase of more than $110 per month, an increase of $50 after the 2011 election and more than $60 after the 2015 election, not counting the automatic annual indexing. As of 2013, people who receive an old age security pension also receive notices to register for the guaranteed income supplement.
Is that not progress? I think this proves that we are there for our seniors and always will be.
Less than a week before the throne speech was delivered, Mr. Legault and Mr. Ford issued a joint call on September 18 for a significant increase in federal funding to help cover the rising costs of health care, but they did not specify the amount they wanted. As my colleague mentioned earlier, all the provinces as well as Quebec are demanding an increase. They called for a $28-billion increase in health transfers, to increase Ottawa's share of health care funding from 22% to 35%.
With the ongoing pandemic, the federal government has committed to transferring $19 billion to the provinces and Quebec, including $10 billion for health-related expenditures. For Mr. Legault and Mr. Ford, the provinces need sustainable funding, not just one-time assistance.
I could go on and on about this, but I have only a minute and a half left, so I would like to take a moment to talk about a recent forecast by the Conference Board of Canada that we heard about today.
Health care spending will increase at an average annual rate of 5.3% until 2030-31. That is worrisome. We must do something in response. Approximately 46% of this average annual increase will be due to inflation, 18% to population growth, 19% to population aging, and the remaining 17% to better access to care and improvements to the health care system.
In closing, I want to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's proposals. I will keep repeating it even if I have to say it hundreds of times. It is about increasing OAS by $110 a month for all citizens 65 and over; the guaranteed income supplement needs to be increased by $50 a month for single individuals and by $70 a month for couples. People everywhere are unanimously calling for a 35% increase in the annual contribution to health transfers and for that contribution to be ongoing.
This requires the annual federal transfer to go from $42 billion to $70 billion and for it to increase by 6% every year thereafter.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-01-26 17:31 [p.3570]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to provide some thoughts with regard to an important issue that goes beyond federal tax return forms and filing those forms. It has a lot to do with our national identity and the types of services we provide as a country, as well as how we best finance those programs. It also has to do with the important role the Canada Revenue Agency plays in our society.
That really has been amplified this year with the pandemic. Outstanding work has been demonstrated by our professional civil servants through the Canada Revenue Agency. I want to take a moment to recognize the valuable contributions they have made during this very difficult time.
I was looking at what I might want to say on this legislation. I often forgo notes and instead speak on a few points. I want to reference a note I received. In the COVID-19 pandemic, CRA, as an essential support to millions of Canadians, came to the plate. It delivered the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, which we all know came from nowhere. This fantastic program was created and CRA was an essential support for Canadians with respect to it. That benefit reached somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8.8 million people, including approximately two million in the province of Quebec. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been if we did not have the CRA performing as it did during the pandemic.
The Canadian emergency wage subsidy program reached 3.5 million Canadians. In the province of Quebec, we are talking about 860,000 Quebeckers. We can describe the efforts supporting students and young people, again through the CRA. The emergency student benefit reached 708,000 Canadians, about 140,000 of whom were from the province of Quebec.
One could take a snapshot of 2020 and recognize the value of the Canada Revenue Agency. We understand the role it plays in getting the necessary revenues, and how diligent it is in collecting taxes. In fact, we have been using the CRA to look at ways to go after individuals who try to avoid paying taxes. This government has invested close to a billion dollars over two federal budgets to go after individuals who were not paying their fair share or were trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
CRA employs thousands of Canadians, many of whom call Quebec their home province. CRA plays a very important role in the city of Winnipeg. I would like to think we would continue to support the Canada Revenue Agency, because it is absolutely fundamental to have. Without it, we would not be able to generate the revenues required to provide the many spending programs we do.
Many members of the Bloc are saying that Quebec has a tax-collecting system and the Government of Canada has a tax-collecting system. They are arguing that the federal government could forfeit its responsibility of collecting taxes in the Province of Quebec in favour of Quebec collecting it all and then handing over a portion to the federal government.
In previous debates in the House, I have talked about my heritage. My ancestors trace directly to the province of Quebec. I believe it is in Canada's best interests, by which I mean all regions of our country, to have a single collection agency. The best government to accomplish that is the national government.
Can members imagine if we had taxation collection from all the provinces and territories? That would be chaotic. The national government continues to be in the best position to ensure that we have a standard that is applicable across the country. We can still respect the interests of each region, province and territory. We have a certain level of expertise and we have responsibility. Over the years, I believe the national government, through the CRA, has done an outstanding job for Canadians in all regions.
I wonder why the Conservatives, at times, seem to be very sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation. I am disappointed by that. Hopefully, I will be surprised and I will see the Conservatives vote against it.
Earlier today, I was asking members of the Bloc questions about health care, believing that it is important to recognize provincial jurisdiction issues but emphasizing that there is still a role for the national government to play in it. I can articulate why we recognize that as a fact.
I have not heard from Bloc members why they believe the CRA should give up that responsibility for a provincial jurisdiction, whether it is Quebec today, or another province or territory in the future. It seems to me the Bloc does this for reasons that are not in the nation's best interests.
The Conservative Party, on the other hand, claims to want to be a strong national party. However, it seems prepared to decentralize certain responsibilities the Government of Canada not only should have, but is doing in a manner that serves Canadians to the optimum benefit. All one needs to do is to reflect on the past year, as I have pointed out, and how well CRA has served Canadians. It is not just an agency that collects. It is a fundamental part of the way in which we operate as—
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise virtually in the House today to talk about an issue that is so important to many of my friends in Quebec.
It is absolutely my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-224, an act to amend an act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to address the very learned comments of the previous speaker. When we talk about Canada and the great country that we are, yes, Canadians believe in a strong Canada. There is no doubt about that. However, that does not mean that we do not also believe in provinces having a certain amount of autonomy and freedom to do the great things they do.
I would be remiss if I did not address the provincial governments and the provincial workers who are also doing a fantastic job. I would particularly point out our front-line workers, many of whom work for our provinces and who are doing a fabulous job, including our nurses and doctors, keeping our country safe.
I would like to directly address the member's comments and say that Conservatives will always stand for a strong Canada, but we also believe in respecting provincial jurisdiction and provinces' right to a certain amount of autonomy.
Getting to the substance of my remarks, as the shadow cabinet minister for national revenue and having been a previous practitioner in the area of taxation, tax season is an extremely stressful and confusing time for many Canadians across this great land of ours. I can confirm that in my practice, and also in my role as the shadow cabinet minister for national revenue, Canadians have learned the hard way, unfortunately, many times, that the income tax system is far too complicated. If anyone doubts me, they should go online or better yet pick up a copy of the Income Tax Code. They will see that it is about yay thick or so. Average Canadians should try to open it up and read it. I defy average parliamentarians to try to grab that Income Tax Act and even understand the first 20 pages in it. It is incomprehensible. It goes from subcomponent to the subcomponent to the subcommittee of this to the subpoint of this, and ongoing. It is a difficult book.
Anyone who knows me knows that I have long since been an advocate of simplifying the tax code. We need to flatten it. We need to make it fairer and more compassionate for Canadians across this great land of ours.
One area in particular that I would call out would be the fact that in order to understand and comply with the income tax rules, people have to understand the various rules and exemptions, and exemptions to the exemptions, and exemptions to exemptions. It is incredibly difficult. I cannot say in strong enough terms that the Income Tax Code is burdensome to Canadians. It is in fact a competitive disadvantage to Canadians, to Canadian businesses and, perhaps most regrettably, to charitable organizations. We need a Canadian Income Tax Code that is better, flatter and fairer to Canadians.
COVID-19 has been a trying time for our country. I would like to agree with the previous member that the CRA has done many great things. I know for a fact that many of our public service workers literally worked around the clock to make sure that the CERB and other benefits came out. Even as the government dawdled, the public service was there to push out those important cheques that people relied on.
I have to say that I have a real concern that with the CERB originally, there was some miscommunication. It went back and forth about whether the CERB was taxable or not. The government has come out and clearly said that in fact the CERB is taxable. I have to tell all Canadians right now that there were no source deductions taken.
Some Canadians might not be aware that when they get a paycheque, the government takes a deposit against their future taxes, and that is called a “source deduction”, which is why, at the end of the year, they do not owe $2,000, $5,000, $10,000 or $100,000 in taxes. The government matches the deposit they pay versus what they actually owe. For many Canadians, it means they get money back in the form of a tax refund. Unfortunately, with respect to the CERB, the government did not take that source deduction, which means that Canadians will owe tax on it. They will effectively have to pay a portion of that CERB back.
I am surprised and, quite frankly, disappointed that the government has not gone out and told people about this. As people get ready to file their taxes, and tax season will soon upon us, I want to make sure that Canadians are aware of that. It is of critical importance, because it is estimated that throughout this pandemic 47% of the labour force turned to the CERB during the pandemic, which is one in four Canadians. Those Canadians who had additional income outside the CERB could very well owe additional money to the Canada Revenue Agency. We want to make sure that point gets out there.
I also want to mention that there are a couple of things going on right now with respect to the CRA and its audits. Like I said, the public service has worked hard to get benefits like CERB out to Canadians, and I am appreciative of that. Nonetheless, I would call upon them to exercise restraint with respect to audits, as we called for in our motion when the CRA attempted to audit small business owners on the wage subsidy during the middle of the second wave of the pandemic, which was particularly acute in some provinces such as Ontario and Quebec. Please, let us allow our Canadian business owners and Canadians get back to work without the fear of an audit coming to them.
Getting back to the substance of the issue, the challenges caused by the Income Tax Act are particularly acute in Quebec. In fact, Quebec is currently the only province in Canada where residents are required to submit both a federal and provincial tax return. On top of dealing with the pandemic and, of course, the devastating impact it has had on the provincial economy, the residents of Quebec also must file their income taxes, not once but twice.
Members who have filed an income tax return, and I am sure all of have, would know that it is a painful experience. I cannot imagine having to do that twice in one year. People in Quebec have rightfully, to my mind, expressed a desire to simplify their tax filing experience and file a single tax return. In fact, the Assemblée nationale du Québec adopted a unanimous motion calling upon the federal government to allow Quebec to administer a single tax return.
Some critics may present a strawman argument that if Quebec collects its income tax, it may not remit it to the federal government. Aside from the obvious insult to the Government of Quebec, this is a disappointing argument. Quebec has been a faithful member of our great confederation and remitting money to the Canadian government year after year for decades, including, notably, the HST and not once, to my recollection, has it missed a payment. I believe in the Province of Quebec, I believe in the civil service of Quebec, and I believe them to be more than capable of administering this.
My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, has proposed Bill C-224 which would authorize provincial governments to collect federal income tax on behalf of the federal government, effectively simplifying the tax filing experience for residents of Quebec, but we do have some questions with respect to how the bill would be implemented. For example, we want to make sure that CRA employees are protected and that there would never be any job losses as a result of this legislation. We want to make sure that the Province of Quebec will do as great a job as the CRA will do in administering and collecting these taxes. We are more than happy to discuss this at committee. I look forward to a productive discussion with expert testimony.
As the shadow cabinet minister of national revenue, I am very happy to support Bill C-224.
We will always stand up for Quebec and the rights of Quebeckers.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-01-26 18:03 [p.3573]
Mr. Speaker, I can tell by his applause that my colleague from Joliette is enthusiastic, which stands to reason because he is the author of the excellent Bill C‑224.
I heard my NDP colleague say some things are missing from the bill, so I am counting on all my colleagues to collaborate in an effort to improve this bill and make sure it covers everything it needs to. I would not want to run into any trumped-up arguments along the way about how some little thing is missing here or there to justify opposition to the bill. If the purpose is worthy, we need to find solutions.
I think there are solutions to each of the objections raised so far. I will come back to that in a bit. Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to start my little timer to make sure I keep to my limit.
Anyway, I would once again like to salute, thank and congratulate our colleague from Joliette, who introduced the bill before us today.
This is an issue that keeps coming up in Quebec, and the Quebec National Assembly has now come to a consensus about it. This is something that the Government of Quebec is now calling for. In that regard, we know that the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister have had the opportunity to discuss this issue.
However, the federal government always seems to drag its feet. We are therefore going to talk about it and ask why the federal government is so reluctant, especially given the fact that this is not, constitutionally speaking, one of its responsibilities, as we will also see. The federal government took over this responsibility in 1916-17, given the circumstances at the time, which is understandable. However, the government conveniently forgot to relinquish that responsibility later, so now it is still overseeing a jurisdiction that is not its own and has been doing so for just over 100 years.
Quebeckers agree that there should be a single tax return. Why? Because that will result in significant savings not only for the government but also for businesses and taxpayers as individuals. We are talking about an annual cost of over $400 million. That is what two tax returns cost. A single tax return would save a lot of money and would also be more efficient. I will give some examples in a just a moment.
I listened to my colleague from the NDP talk about tax evasion and tax avoidance. The current system of having two entities that do not share information does not help with the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. To answer this argument, I would say that, on the contrary, the proposal made by our colleague from Joliette would have a clear benefit and would be very appropriate for achieving this objective being pursued by our colleagues in the NDP, among others. Lastly, we would avoid confusion in data transcription from having to do everything twice, which can cause problems in that area as well.
Here is a question I am sure I will be asked: If having a single tax return is a good idea, why not have the Government of Canada administer it, as it does for the other provinces? My answer is that this overlooks the fact that Quebec is a nation. I am not just saying that to insist on our status. The fact that Quebec is a nation has even been recognized by the House.
Quebec, as a nation, should have a certain degree of fiscal autonomy so it can implement programs and policies that reflect its aspirations, needs, special status and distinct character.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, this would also overlook the fact that this power falls to Quebec and the provinces.
Fundamentally, under the Canadian Constitution, this power falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. Why did the federal government stick its nose in once again? During the First World War, the federal government asked if it could collect income taxes to help pay for the war effort. The provinces saw no problem with that. A century later, the federal government is still collecting income taxes.
When Maurice Duplessis created an income tax in Quebec, he did not do it just to show up the federal government because he thought we were distinct. He simply wanted to exercise Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction over taxes.
For some time now I have been hearing members, including my NDP colleague who spoke before me, put forward the legitimate argument of keeping jobs in Mauricie and Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. It is an argument worth considering, since families rely on those jobs. However, it is a fallacious argument because where there is a will on both sides, there is a way.
The best evidence of that is when the Government of Quebec took back control of labour, which the federal government had controlled until then. The two governments sat down and negotiated in good faith. It all went smoothly, with no job losses, and I believe the same can be done in this case.
The argument is that the federal government collects the taxes for all the provinces. That is fine, if the other provinces are willing to accept this intrusion into their jurisdictions. I would like to point out, however, that in Quebec, it is the Quebec government that collects the GST for the federal government. How is that possible? The two governments negotiated and arrived at a more efficient and economical solution. That is a good example.
The Government of Quebec has proven that it can do a good job for the federal government. If it can be done for the GST, why not for income tax? I therefore do not think that last argument holds water. When the Quebec government began collecting the GST, no jobs were lost. As long as there is goodwill on both sides, I am confident that we can come up with solutions.
I do not mean to be disingenuous, but the Canada Revenue Agency has had some fairly bad press lately. I have heard some negative comments about Revenu Québec, but I should point out that Revenu Québec has not been in the news for unfavourable reasons in recent years. I will leave it at that, because I do not want anyone to claim I am being disingenuous.
I heard my colleague mention the discussions on the resolution the NDP adopted in Sherbrooke, as well as the political and constitutional future of Quebec and Canada. However, that is not what we are talking about here. This falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. This is not about separatism or federalism. It is about respect for the Constitution, which is so important to our federalist colleagues.
When the Constitution works for them, they bring it up often. However, when the Constitution does not work in their favour, for example with respect to the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health, they ignore it and do not mention it much. It is out of respect for that Constitution that my colleague from Joliette has asked for Quebec to be allowed to collect income taxes for its government and for the federal government, as it already does with the GST.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge at the outset of this debate that the intent of the proposed legislation is appealing. It is only when we look at what it would mean in practice that its problems become apparent. These problems are significant: higher costs for taxpayers; inconsistent administration across jurisdictions; less capacity to move quickly, efficiently and effectively to support Canadians through emergencies like COVID-19; the need to renegotiate existing international tax treaties and agreements; employment disruptions; and job losses.
These adverse impacts may not have been taken into consideration when Quebec's National Assembly passed its motion back in May of 2018 calling on the federal government to allow the Province of Quebec to administer a single tax return. They also may not have been taken into account when Bill C-224 was drafted. However, it is our duty and obligation as representatives of Canadians to take them into account now. Canadians rightfully expect their governments to administer taxes and deliver programs in a fair, efficient and cost-effective manner. It is in this regard that Bill C-224 falls well short of this intent.
Let us take a moment to revisit these shortcomings. First and foremost, Bill C-224 would likely entail higher overall costs for Canadian taxpayers. That is because the Government of Canada collects and administers not only federal income taxes, but also income taxes of all the provinces and territories, except for corporate income tax in Alberta and personal and corporate income taxes in Quebec. This results in savings for taxpayers because a single tax administrator at the national level creates efficiencies and economies of scale that lower overall taxpayer administration costs. If a province were to assume responsibility for the collection and administration of federal income taxes, these efficiencies would be reduced, increasing costs to taxpayers.
Moving in the opposite direction and creating an additional layer of tax administration, as proposed in Bill C-224, would have the opposite effect. It would create inefficiencies, decrease economies of scale and increase overall per-taxpayer administration costs. It is an unavoidable fact that the cost of tax administration is driven by fixed investments in the technology and office space needed to administer taxes, and the administration of federal income tax by the Province of Quebec would not help lower these fixed costs in the province. Rather, these fixed costs would have to be incurred instead by both CRA and Revenu Québec.
Canadians would be right to ask who would pay for the increased costs that could arise from such duplication in investment and administration, and the Premier of Quebec has at least been forthright in providing the answer for them: the Government of Canada. The Premier of Quebec has made it clear that his government would seek reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of federal income taxes. Canadians may be curious about how much this will cost them, but in this respect, we have seen no proposed cost implications. Determining what the additional costs would be depends on the scope and scale of the tax programs transferred to Quebec and the outcome of the negotiations between governments.
However, based on experience of when the administration of sales tax was transferred from the Ontario government to the federal government following the harmonization of the GST and PST, and given the much greater scale of this change, it would be expected that the transition costs alone would be at least $800 million, and likely more than this. This does not include increased costs from the loss of economies of scale for CRA or the costs associated with the renegotiation of our international agreements, even if our international partners were willing to entertain such negotiations.
What we do know for sure is that Bill C-224, by effectively creating a separate tax administrator for federal taxes in Quebec, would reduce the consistency of tax administration nationally. Doing so would impair CRA's administrative capacity, and therefore the federal government's ability, to deliver timely and effective support to Canadians in the face of sudden national challenges and emergencies, as we have seen in the case of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Bill C-224 would hobble our efforts at supporting Canadians not only nationally, but indeed internationally. Canada has over 100 international tax treaties and agreements that protect Canadians against double taxation and assist in addressing international tax evasion and avoidance. These treaties and agreements specify the Minister of National Revenue as Canada's competent authority, and we have no sense that our international partners would be interested in changing this arrangement. In fact, it is entirely possible that they may not want to interact with two or more separate tax administrations in their many treaties and agreements with Canada. The renegotiation of these treaties and agreements could take years and expend significant financial resources that could be put to better use at a time when we are confronted with challenges like the immense ones posed by COVID-19.
Bill C-224 would also introduce new complexities and costs related to the administration of federal benefits and programs, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada pension plan and employment insurance, given the significant links between these programs and the administration of personal income tax.
Last but not least, the bill could have a negative impact on jobs in communities that depend on them. There are currently between 4,800 and 5,500 CRA employees in Quebec, depending on the time of year, serving at 14 offices throughout the province. Around 60% of them are women. There are also many CRA employees working outside of Quebec who work on federal taxes for Quebec residents. Bill C-224 would inevitably change some of their employment situations. The impacts this carries with it are not just at the personal level, but also at the family and community levels.
While Bill C-224 would require the Government of Canada to carry these costs, it provides no detail or accounting in terms of their skill, which could be significant. Such an open-ended deal could lead to similar demands from other provinces seeking federal funding for the creation of their own tax administrative systems, leading to an inefficient patchwork of separate tax administration programs across Canada. This would lead to challenges similar to those I have just outlined but on a wider scale, with even higher per-taxpayer administration costs.
As I said at the outset, Canadians rightfully expect their governments to administer taxes and deliver programs in a fair, efficient and cost-effective manner. For all the reasons I have outlined today, Bill C-224 falls well short of this goal. Rather than lowering costs for taxpayers and supporting further efficiencies, it would take us in the opposite direction. That is why our government cannot support Bill C-224.
While we remain open to improving tax administration in Quebec, we can do this while maintaining Canada's role as the administrator of the federal income taxes in Quebec. We will continue to work together with Revenu Québec, with which we have a long-standing collaborative relationship, to find ways of streamlining the filing of taxes to ensure better harmonization of our respective tax administrations and make filing easier for Quebec taxpayers.
We are always open to making things better. However, for the reasons I have outlined today, Bill C-224 does not deliver on this front.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak quickly.
I am proud to support Bill C‑224, which would authorize Quebeckers to file a single tax return.
Some people may be wondering what I am talking about. Quebeckers have to file two tax returns a year, as though filing a single tax return were not already hard enough for many Canadians. Quebec is the only province with a confusing system that requires two tax returns.
Conservatives are proud to support Quebec's desire to require only one tax return to be filed by Quebeckers. It is a reality in other parts of Canada that people only have to file one tax return, and for a lot of people, I think filing one tax return is quite enough.
The government member who spoke before me, in a desperate effort to justify the government's opposition to this concept, trotted out this old Liberal trope that centralization means efficiency, that the more the federal government does, the more efficient it is going to be and, by the way, let us also worry that there will be less work for federal employees, not seeming to notice the inherent contradiction in those arguments.
On the Conservative side, we believe there are many worthwhile things that we could have employees at Revenue Canada do. Perhaps the government could finally support a Conservative idea, which is to give CRA a duty of care when it comes to serving Canadians and maybe redeploy those employees just to have the additional time and flexibility to provide greater service and response and care to people who have questions and issues.
Really, it is just fundamentally, philosophically wrong that the Liberals always think that centralization is efficiency. On the Conservative side, we understand the value of subsidiarity, of having services delivered at the level closest to the people, that it is practical to do so. We believe in empowering provincial governments and municipal governments; respecting the role of families, of communities and of individuals; respecting individual rights and not thinking that the federal government taking more and more power for itself away from individuals, away from families and away from provincial and municipal governments is the way to go. Government is not always the solution, and bigger government, national government, is not always the solution when provincial governments and municipal governments are closer and more responsive to people.
I had many other comments to make, but I will simply say that I am proud to support this bill at this stage.
I look forward to the study that is going to take place at committee as we further work to refine it and to operationalize these principles of subsidiarity and respect for provincial governments that are a key part of what Conservatives stand for.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-01-26 18:26 [p.3576]
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to wish you a happy new year and hope that we will turn the page on this pandemic.
I listened carefully and with interest to my colleagues' interventions on establishing a single tax return administered by Quebec. I will start by thanking my colleague from Montarville for his eloquent speech, and also my colleague from La Prairie. I also acknowledge the speeches made by my Conservative colleagues, who seem to be receptive to this bill. I thank them.
The same goes for my NDP colleagues. I listened carefully to the interventions of the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and New Westminster—Burnaby. I see that the NDP is open to the principle, but has concerns about protecting jobs. That is my concern as well, and I know that we will be able to improve this bill in committee to address this very legitimate concern. The bill was actually drafted with this issue in mind.
I was very disappointed to hear the Liberal Party members voicing their opposition to this bill, mostly because their arguments are not at all valid. For example, their contention that they plan to vote against the bill in order to save money because it would cost more to administer a single tax return than it would to administer two does not make any sense.
What I understand from their spurious arguments is that the government and the Liberal Party are against the bill but for reasons that they do not want to discuss. That much is clear.
If we were not in the midst of a pandemic, I would try to have an informal discussion with the Minister of Finance to find out the real reasons why the Liberals are opposing this bill. I would like to remind members that this bill on a single tax return administered by Quebec is widely supported.
What is more, this is not a major undertaking but rather a simple improvement to our way of doing things intended to make life easier for individuals and businesses in Quebec. Under this bill, they would have to file only one tax return instead of two and answer to only one agency instead of two. The bill would also eliminate the duplication of effort. That is all.
I would like to point out once again that there is consensus in Quebec on this legislation. The National Assembly has expressed its unanimous support for it. Premier Legault has formally requested it from the Prime Minister of this federal government. An overwhelming majority of Quebeckers support this bill. All of corporate Quebec supports this idea, including chambers of commerce, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, independent business owners, the Quebec CPA Order and many unions.
The bill is good for Quebeckers. According to the IRAI, it will save $425 million a year. Individuals will save $39 million, businesses will save $99 million, and $287 million would be saved by eliminating bureaucratic duplication. This bill will allow Quebec to crack down on tax havens more effectively on its own, rather than relying on Ottawa, which is asleep at the wheel.
This is a pretty simple bill. There is nothing revolutionary about it. It respects the Quebec nation and saves everyone time and money.
I would also remind the House that, 20 years ago, after years of negotiations, Quebec City managed to come to an agreement with Ottawa on the collection of sales tax from businesses. Rather than Ottawa collecting the GST and Quebec collecting the QST, Revenu Québec collects both the GST and the QST at the same time. This means far less paperwork for businesses and generates significant savings. Revenu Québec is present in every region of Quebec, and this system works well. It has been successful, and no one complains about it.
I would therefore ask my colleagues to support this bill for a single tax return administered by Quebec, to finish what was started 20 years ago.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-12-01 17:26 [p.2791]
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-210, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act, which would enable the CRA to use tax returns to collect the information required for establishing and maintaining an organ and tissue donor registry in the province. The second part of the bill would allow the CRA to disclose this information to Quebec and the provinces and territories with which it has entered into an agreement.
Today I will talk about three different points connected to this bill.
First, I will talk about our party's position on this matter. Second, I will read some excerpts of articles and will share some cases that describe the state of organ donation in Quebec, Canada and the world. Third, I will talk a little about how the pandemic has made organ donation difficult.
I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which should have absolutely no impact on Quebec. We also want Quebec to manage a single tax return. Even if that does not happen, Quebec will have to get all of the information required from its own tax returns. Allow me to explain. The Bloc Québécois has no problem with this bill, but Quebec is unlikely to sign an agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency, since Quebec already has its own tax return.
What the Bloc Québécois wants instead is a single tax return handled by Quebec, which means that this bill would not affect Quebec at all. Even if Quebec wanted an agreement, we would have no problem with sharing this information. Quebec is free to sign an agreement or not. This bill does not commit Quebec to anything or limit it in any way. It lets the CRA collect information if there is an agreement with participating provinces, and sharing that information with the provinces is not a problem. It actually makes sense because the CRA handles all the tax returns outside Quebec.
Now I would like to show how Nova Scotia recently legislated to reverse consent for organ donation. Nova Scotians are now deemed to be consenting unless they state otherwise. Quebec is just getting started on a debate to do the same as Nova Scotia. I had a chance to sit in on a passionate debate on the subject. Right now, Quebeckers have to indicate on their health card whether they want to donate their organs when they die. Quebec has all the information it needs to improve the situation.
According to experts, increasing the supply of organs would be very helpful, but we need more doctors who specialize in organ and tissue retrieval and transplants. This brings us back to the subject of the debate raised in the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois here today, that is, the importance of increasing health transfers. It is only logical. Without additional funding, it would be difficult for Quebec and the provinces to have these medical specialists.
As Raôul Duguay said, everything is in everything.
In addition, the number of potential donors is relatively limited, which further complicates things.
Second, I will share some statistics drawn from current events that illustrate some of the problems that exist in organ donation in Canada.
There is not enough supply to meet the demand. Even though the number of transplants has increased by 33% over the past 10 years, there is still a shortage of organs in Canada, according to the latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. In 2008, 4,351 Canadians were on a transplant waiting list according to CIHI figures. In the same year, 2,782 organ transplants were performed in Canada, while 223 people died while waiting for transplants.
The increased need for organ transplantation is in part being driven by the rising number of Canadians diagnosed with end-stage kidney disease, which went up 32% over the 10 years studied. According to Greg Webster, CIHI's director of acute and ambulatory care information services, improved organ donation practices across Canada have resulted in a 33% increase in transplant procedures over the last decade.
For most organs, patient survival is greater than 80% after five years.
One of the reasons for the increased number of transplants is that many countries have expanded deceased organ donation practice beyond brain death cases to include donation after cardiac death, meaning the heart has permanently stopped beating. This has led to an increase of almost 430% in the number of donation after cardiac death organs used for transplantation, from 42 in 2009 to 222 in 2018.
According to Dr. Gill, transplant nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, with the increase in donation after cardiac death, there has been a substantial increase in the number of organ donors in Canada, and this has shortened wait times, particularly for those waiting for kidney or lung transplants.
The number of donors after brain death also increased by 21% between 2009 and 2018. That is an encouraging trend given that a deceased donor can provide up to eight organs.
Data published by CIHI also reveal that there were 555 living donors in Canada in 2018. These are people who donated a kidney or a lobe of liver. There were also 762 deceased donors in Canada. The number of deceased donors increased by 56% between 2009 and 2018, whereas the number of living donors remained stable.
Nova Scotia's decision to adopt presumed consent for organ donation has pushed several provinces to ask themselves the question. Is this the best way to increase the number of donors? Survivors and family members believe it is, but for some experts the solution is not that simple. As we heard earlier, we need more specialists.
I will talk about a few cases. Four years ago, Sammy, a young boy from Montreal, was diagnosed with Kawasaki syndrome, a childhood illness that leads to heart complications. He has been living with a new heart for three years. He is in good health. At age 11, Sammy is on the short list of patients who have benefited from organ donation.
Linda Paradis's life was turned upside down at age 60, two years ago, when her lungs started to deteriorate. This active businesswoman fit as from Quebec suddenly ended up with a few weeks to live, a few weeks away from death's door. She ended up getting a double lung transplant. Of course for her, automatic consent does not hurt. It also takes doctors who are able to perform the operation.
Nova Scotia adopting legislation that assumes all citizens are organ donors has given the rest of the country something to think about. The Premier of Nova Scotia, Stephen McNeil, hopes that his initiative will snowball, but for now, nothing is certain. New Brunswick is looking at the idea closely. The governments of Quebec and British Columbia are saying that they will be monitoring what happens in Nova Scotia, and Ontario says it is happy with its system.
Some European countries like France and Spain adopted presumed consent several years ago. At this time, the data do not show a clear correlation between presumed consent and an increase in the number of donors. Marie-Chantal Fortin, a nephrologist and bioethicist at CHUM, said that it is a simple solution to a complex problem. She pointed out that countries with presumed consent like Spain have excellent organ donation rates, yet the United States, which does not have presumed consent, also has a high organ donation rate.
What experts do agree on is that we need better training for medical teams and, above all, people have to talk about organ donation with their friends and family. I mentioned training for medical teams. This brings us back to the debate on increasing health transfers.
The pandemic exacerbated the problems related to organ donation. According to an article published in July 2020, the organ donation rate is the lowest it has been in five years because of COVID-19. That is what Transplant Québec warned. The provincial organization responsible for organ management counted only two people who donated organs to save five patients in April 2020, while the number of donors was already low. According to a press release from Transplant Québec, executive director Louis Beaulieu said, “The slowdown that occurred in April was mainly due to the exceptional circumstances we found ourselves in. The need to ensure the safety of transplant recipients and the massive reorganization that occurred in hospitals contributed to this situation.”
Despite the resumption of activities in May, Transplant Québec noticed a 50% drop in the number of organ donors and a 60% drop in transplants for the second quarter of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.
In closing, I hope that we can come up with better solutions in this debate so that we can save lives without feeling uncomfortable talking about the signature on the back of the card. I would like to read a rather interesting testimonial from the oldest organ donor in Quebec. He said, “Just because I'm 92 years old, that doesn't mean that I can't donate an organ.” He gave part of his liver, and the recipient is doing well. As for Quebec's youngest organ donor, it is a much more tragic story. He lived only 48 hours, but he was able to donate his heart. Let's give from our hearts and sign the card.
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2020-12-01 17:35 [p.2793]
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House today and support Bill C-210, with great thanks to my hon. colleague from Calgary Confederation. I had the immense pleasure of serving with him on the health committee for a number of years. I cannot think of a finer parliamentarian and a more collegial, publicly minded representative than he. I am so pleased to support legislation that I know he has fought so hard to make a reality in this place.
This legislation would amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to enter into an agreement with a province or a territory regarding the collection and disclosure of information required for establishing or maintaining an organ and tissue donor registry in the province or territory. In short, what the act would do is allow Canadians to indicate on their tax return that they wish to have their information shared with a provincial or territorial organ and tissue donation program to help facilitate and expedite the donation of organs and tissues in the country.
Canada's New Democrats believe that we must make every possible effort to ensure that every Canadian who needs an organ or tissue transplant receives it. Just one donor can save up to eight lives and benefit more than 75 people, yet, at 18 donors per million people, Canada's current donation rate puts us in the lower third of developed countries. Allowing Canadians to register as an organ and tissue donor through their tax returns will help increase registration rates, improve consent rates and help build a donation culture in Canada.
This legislation was first introduced in the 42nd Parliament as Bill C-316. Despite passing unanimously in the House of Commons, Bill C-316 was one of several bills that unfortunately were allowed to die on the Order Paper in the Senate before the last election. By the way, the Senate also blocked legislation to give mandatory sexual assault training to federally appointed judges, implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ban unhealthy food and beverages marketing directed at children.
However, this was a life and death matter. Canadians are currently dying while on wait lists simply because our organ and tissue donation rate is so unacceptably low. At present, only 20% of Canadians have joined their province's organ and tissue registry. Provinces like Ontario are taking steps to make it easier by asking about organ and tissue donations on health card and driver licence renewals, which has increased registrations. However, even when everything is in place, some 20% of families refuse to transplant a registered donor's organs and tissue.
In our recent study on organ and tissue donation at the Standing Committee on Health last Parliament, we learned that of the 4,500 Canadians on the wait list, 260 died waiting for an organ in 2016 alone. In order to better meet this demand, improved coordination across provinces and territories is needed.
Bill C-210 would allow the federal government to coordinate with provinces and territories to allow Canadians to register as an organ and tissue donor through their federal tax filing.
The act would align with the long-standing advocacy and legislative work of New Democrat MPs around organ and tissue donations. The bill is essentially a version of the previous proposal to create a pan-Canadian organ donor registry to coordinate and promote organ and tissue donations throughout Canada.
In February 2016, Conservative MP for Edmonton Manning, whose son had been the recipient of three donated livers, reintroduced a private member's bill calling for a national registry. That bill had been previously introduced seven times by both the Liberals and two New Democrats, Lou Sekora, Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Malcolm Allen.
Unfortunately, the Liberal caucus voted to defeat the member for Edmonton Manning's bill. The Liberals defended their decision to kill the bill, without study, by claiming that it was a matter that was under provincial jurisdiction and it was for that reason the bill was unsupportable.
Leaving that question aside, I want to quote from a couple of important stakeholders. The Kidney Foundation of Canada says, “In an environment where the supply of donor organs is so low and demands are so high, missed opportunities for donation are literally a matter of life and death. Donor organs are rare and precious and every opportunity needs to be pursued to ensure that no potential donation is missed or lost because it also means lost lives of those waiting for transplant.”
Dr. Philip Halloran, professor of medicine at the University of Alberta, said, “Donations in Canada are not performing at the standard that our colleagues in the United States are performing and there isn’t really any excuse except organization and accountability.”
I was therefore quite disappointed to see jurisdiction thrown out by the Liberals as being a barrier to facilitating organ and tissue donation.
Here are a few facts.
While 90% of Canadians support organ and tissue donation, less than 20% have made plans to donate. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a centralized list of people waiting for an organ or tissue transplant.
The efficiency of donor registration varies greatly from province to province to territory. In the case where someone dies outside of the province where they are registered for organ and tissue donation, it is highly unlikely the hospital would be able to identify them as a donor. Online registration is available only in five provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec.
Even if someone is registered as a donor, the family has the final say. As I pointed out, about one in five registered organ and tissue donors had their wishes overridden by family members, according to a 2016 report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
For every patient in Canada who does receive an organ transplant, there are two more on the wait-list. In the past 10 years, the number of deceased organ donors has gone up by 42%, so there is progress, but the number of people needing a transplant has also gone up at the same time. Over 1,600 Canadians are added to the organ wait-lists yearly.
Canada is the only developed country without national organ donation legislation, such as the U.S.'s 1984 National Organ Transplant Act, so it is time that parliamentarians united and addressed this very pressing need. We cannot let jurisdiction, difficulty, party interests and technicalities get in the way of doing what we all know is necessary: We must make it much more efficient and simple for Canadians, who overwhelmingly want to donate organs and tissue, to do so to save their family members and other Canadians.
It is my view that the best system of all is an opt-out system, where everyone is considered to be an organ donor unless they specifically opt out. This respects the rights of everyone who does not, for various reasons, whether religious, philosophical, health or any other reason at all, want to be an organ and tissue donor. There are many countries around the globe that have such a system, and what we see in those countries is that their rates of organ and tissue donations and transplants dwarf Canada's rates. This saves lives.
I hope that all parliamentarians can work together, support the bill, expedite it through this place and ensure that the Senate passes it as soon as possible. Let us do everything we can in this country to facilitate organ and tissue donation and transplantation as soon as possible.
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
2020-12-01 17:43 [p.2794]
Madam Speaker, at the beginning I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech and his call for support for this very important issue. It is very close to my heart and I have always hoped to see this debated on the floor of the House of Commons.
After five years in the House, I cannot think of a bill that I have agreed with more than this one, Bill C-210, which was proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Confederation. He is to be commended for his vision and desire to help Canadians.
Bill C-210, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act regarding organ and tissue donors, is a short bill that has only two clauses. It is a simple, effective and life-saving act. With a “yes” vote, we can all save lives. Bill C-210 authorizes the Canada Revenue Agency to ask those filling out their tax forms if they wish to be organ donors. It allows the CRA to provide that information to provincial health authorities for their organ donor lists.
When we talk about organ donation, we frequently talk about facts and figures. I intended to give some of those today. Sometimes, though, we forget that behind each number there is a human being involved. Lives become impacted for better or worse, depending on the availability of a much-needed transplant. It is that human element that makes this bill so important.
For example, let me tell members about my son, Tyler. When a child is born, parents always have great dreams for them. There is unlimited potential. We are excited to see how they will fulfill it, and so it was with Tyler, who is now a young adult. My wife and I are very proud of him. Tyler is alive, thanks to not one but three organ donations. Without them, I would be standing here telling the story of a life lost, not a life saved.
Tyler was born with a defective liver. When he was very young it became apparent that without a transplant, he would die. The liver is a remarkable organ that can regenerate itself. That means that the transplant can be from a live donor, that is, if the two people are compatible. With any surgery there are risks, and 20 years ago, liver surgeries were much riskier than they are today. No one undergoes such a procedure without much thought beforehand.
I was a compatible donor. Would I risk my life to allow my son to live? Of course I would and the operation was a success. That, though, is not the end of the story. That first liver transplant did not last.
On Christmas Eve, 2003, it looked like Tyler's time had run out. His life expectancy was now days, perhaps hours. I was not allowed to make a second donation. Almost miraculously, a liver became available from a Quebec man who had just died. We were told it was not the perfect solution. It would only buy time, but time was what we were desperately looking for.
After a decade that liver also began to fail. One more time we entered the medical system. Our emotions were a mixture of hope and fear. There were no guarantees. We knew the statistics. We knew the odds and, as we had done before, we prayed for a miracle. Once again, a grieving family offered a loved one's organ for the good of the community and a match was made. Today, we are so grateful to have a healthy son.
There are no sufficient words in any language to express the gratitude my wife Liz and I still feel for the anonymous donors who saved Tyler's life.
Our family's experience is not unique, but there are not enough available organs to meet the need. Bill C-210 seeks to alleviate that.
When Tyler first began having problems, I became aware of the unmet need for organ donations in Canada. There are literally thousands of people waiting for the telephone call that will change their lives and the lives of those around them. Tragically, for more than 200 Canadians every year time runs out before the phone call comes.
More than 90% of Canadians support organ and tissue donation, which is a great yield, but in theory less than 25% make plans to donate. I will not embarrass hon. members by asking for a show of hands as to how many of them have registered to become organ donors should they die. It is probably not as many as one would expect.
Canada's organ donation rate puts us in about 20th place in international ranking. We need to do better. After all, one donor can benefit more than 75 people and save more than eight lives. A single donor can provide lungs, a heart, liver, kidneys, corneas and more.
According to the Canadian organ replacement register, in 2018 there were 762 deceased donors in Canada and 2,782 organ transplant procedures performed. However, there were 4,351 people on organ transplant waiting lists and 223 of those people died waiting for an organ to become available. That is a sad statistic. The demand for organs is increasing, but the supply is not maintaining the pace.
The number of patients on the waiting list for kidney transplants is approximately two and a half times higher than the number of transplants performed. More than 1,600 Canadians are added to the wait-lists each year, which means we are falling behind.
The various ways of registering to be an organ donor are good, but more effort is needed. It is not that people are opposed to the idea of organ donation, but we do not seem to be that great at putting the idea into practice. By expanding the number of those willing to be organ donors, Bill C-210 could help save lives. By allowing people to indicate their wishes before death, medical personnel would not have to approach a grieving family at the worst possible time to ask about the gift of life.
What if it was a member's son or daughter who needed a transplant? Would they not do everything in their power to make sure it could happen? By making a simple change to the income tax forms through Bill C-210, we would be giving Canadians an easy way to do the right thing.
We are talking a bill that could literally save thousands of lives. Think about that. Think about what we do here in the House and how we are frequently unsure of the effects of our actions. With Bill C-210, we know we would be doing good. How many lives lost is too many? In many ways that is the question we are asking today.
We have an opportunity to do good for all Canadians. Why waste it? I urge every member to support Bill C-210.
Results: 46 - 60 of 106 | Page: 4 of 8

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data