Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 106
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Confederation for bringing the issue of organ and tissue donation in Canada to the forefront.
I would like to start by sharing some national data on the subject to paint a picture of the situation. Some 4,400 people in Canada are waiting for an organ or tissue donation, and more than 1,600 people join the waiting list every year.
It is devastating to think that 250 people die in Canada every year while waiting for a transplant. Many of those deaths could have been prevented, and the reason for that is simple. Canada has too few organ and tissue donors. This is all the more devastating knowing that a single organ and tissue donor can save up to eight lives and improve the lives of 75 people.
That is why I am happy to support this bill at second reading, and I have to say that I am eagerly looking forward to an in-depth examination of this legislation in committee. We are all touched by the fact that too many people are waiting for organs and tissue, and we all want Canada's donor list to get longer.
That said, at committee stage, we will need to ensure that the bill actually meets its objective in the most efficient way possible. I believe that we will also need to ensure that the legislation specifies the most efficient means possible for the Canada Revenue Agency to collect donor information.
Then, we will also need to ensure that the CRA can dialogue with the provinces and territories to see if any amendments could be made to improve the bill. It could also be worthwhile to hear the testimony of the agency's non-partisan and professional officials who might be involved in the process. To the extent possible, it might also be interesting to hear what provincial and territorial experts would have to say on the matter.
To be sure, we will need to study this bill closely to ensure that it will create the best possible framework in which the provinces and territories can easily and safely share donor information with the CRA. The idea is obviously to end up with the best bill possible, because it is painfully obvious that far too many people are waiting on organ and tissue transplants in this country.
I am also proud to say that the Government of Canada is already turning its attention to this issue. As announced in budget 2019, effective in 2019-20, Health Canada will receive $36.5 million over five years, as well as an additional $5 million per year thereafter, to help in the development of a pan-Canadian data and performance system for organ donation and transplantation in collaboration with provincial and territorial partners. The funding will also support the promotion of organ and tissue donations to the Canadian public.
According to polls on this issue, 90% of Canadians support organ and tissue donation but less than 20% of Canadians plan to donate their organs and tissues. In light of these statistics, it is clear that we need to raise awareness of this issue among Canadians.
Public awareness about organ and tissue donation is urgently needed, since year after year, despite gains made here and there, the end result brings its fair share of disappointment.
For example, we have noticed in the past few years that the number of deceased organ donors has gone up by 42%.
While that is encouraging, unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant has also gone up during that same time, and the situation remains concerning. As a result, Canadians are dying because they are not getting an organ or tissue transplant. This is utterly tragic.
I recently heard a very inspiring story about Logan Boulet.
Logan played defence for the Humboldt Broncos, a junior hockey team. The team was travelling to a game together when their bus was hit by a transport truck in April 2018.
That story made headlines and struck a chord with Canadians. Logan was a registered organ donor and had made his wishes known in the weeks before his death. He was able to donate his heart, lungs, liver, both kidneys and both corneas.
News of these generous donations produced what was called the Logan Boulet effect. More than 60,000 people across Canada signed up to be organ and tissue donors in the weeks that followed. His father launched an initiative the following year called Green Shirt Day. This initiative honours his son's actions by promoting awareness of organ and tissue donation. The addition of 100,000 donors would be heartwarming news to come out of this tragedy.
There is no question that more must be done to address the serious need for organs and tissue available for donation. Today transplants can help burn victims recover, remove the need for long-time dialysis, reduce the need for amputations, repair childhood heart problems, assist in heart bypass surgery, replace lungs affected by cystic fibrosis with healthy ones and replace the disfigured facial features of accident victims by providing a cosmetic solution. Living donors who are of the age of majority and in good health can donate a kidney, part of the liver and a lobe of a lung and continue to lead full and rewarding lives. What could be more rewarding than saving someone else's life?
By promoting awareness among Canadians, we can increase the number of donors. The Logan Boulet effect is proof of that. Furthermore, when we work together at the national level, with the provinces and territories, we can continue to improve the organ and tissue donation and transplant system, to guarantee Canadians timely, efficient access to health care.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, it is a real honour for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-210.
I believe that the subject we are discussing has the potential to meet the urgent needs of many Canadians, and I want to emphasize the word Canadians. It is true. Quebec can sleep well at night knowing that this bill will not really have any impact on it.
I commend Nova Scotia for the steps it has taken to make organ donation automatic and make opting out voluntary, rather than the other way around. Bill C-210 will facilitate this approach through close collaboration with Ottawa to get the relevant information from people's income tax returns.
As I just mentioned, Quebec will not be part of that Canadian collaboration because it is already collecting that information. However, members know me and I will not turn a deaf ear. It is clear that, in due course, the Quebec National Assembly will move forward and it will be very simple. I hope it will be simple for all of the provinces that have to manage their health care systems and meet an ever-growing need for organ transplants.
Provinces know what they are doing. Once again, the Quebec formula of national, responsible, grassroots governance is paying dividends. I can only agree with other provinces taking the same approach or with other governments choosing to collaborate, especially on a matter of health.
That is a welcome change from the arm-wrestling matches we too often see in this House. Actually, I will digress for a moment, because my fellow Quebeckers would be upset if I did not take this opportunity to remind all hon. members and everyone watching that Quebec is still asking for a single income tax return. I also want to point out that processing Quebec taxes costs the federal government an arm and a leg. With the spending announced yesterday and the looming deficit, I again urge the government to consider that option, which is completely in line with its willingness to listen and collaborate on this bill. Now might be the ideal time to go down that road since the federal government will need public servants to deal with all that was announced yesterday. A lot of elbow grease will be required if this country, now more generous than ever, is to also become more efficient than ever. Now back to the matter at hand.
It is up to Quebec and the provinces to decide what works best for them when it comes to organ donation and transplants. This issue literally speaks to peoples' values and intersects with different peoples' funeral rites. Society's many perspectives can create sparks when they intersect.
In the House, our colleagues in the NDP and in the Liberal Party are fighting tooth and nail for a centralized government. Our Conservative colleagues always wrestle with collective decisions that are connected to their social and religious beliefs. In the Bloc Québécois, we are working non-stop for Quebec's independence.
How does organ donation work elsewhere? This is not always a simple debate, and that makes sense. Brazil has even taken a step backwards. This is why every society needs to move at its own pace.
I would just like to be parochial for a moment. Things can be done locally to significantly increase the donor pool. On that front, people may be surprised to hear that few governments can match Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. In my region, the number of donors per million inhabitants is neck and neck with Spain, which sets the bar. That is impressive, and it might raise a few eyebrows, but it is by design.
Where I am from, there is a strong culture of organ donation and health organizations identify potential donors. According to a 2019 La Presse article, my region is impressively effective, mainly because health professionals have access to training and there is constant follow-up. The author added that a culture of organ donation makes it easier to convince family members of the deceased, who always have the final say in Quebec, to consent to organ harvesting.
If I could just plant a seed, reading between the lines, what matters most is a solid, well-funded health network capable of innovation and adaptation. That is the foundation of a better health system.
This brings me back to one of our demands: increased federal health transfers. Quebec and the provinces are scrambling to support health care systems whose costs have increased exponentially. Meanwhile, the federal government expects us to welcome it with open arms as it dictates how long-term care centres should operate, when just yesterday it showed up to the family party empty-handed.
As they say, out of sight, out of mind. The federal government withdrew so much from health care that it ended up losing interest. Now it is suddenly newly aware that this is a big responsibility, and it wants to take some of it on.
This is totally inconsistent with its record of inaction. Members will recall that over the past few decades both Liberal and Conservative governments have systematically paid down their deficits on the backs of Quebec and the provinces. Today, as many regions teeter on the brink of disaster, Ottawa might have had the good idea of introducing Bill C-210, but that does not make up for the fact that it has messed up pretty much everything else. In the circumstances, the government should think long and hard before invoking the pandemic as an excuse to interfere in such clearly defined areas of jurisdiction.
All of this brings us back to the basic argument for Bill C-210, namely that the federal government can and must support the provinces and provide them with the tools they want, when they want them, and how they want them. In this case, that consists in the federal government's immediate and unconditional payment of $28 billion to Quebec and the provinces.
At its core, Canadian federalism was designed to prevent all levels of government from stepping on each other's toes. When Ottawa decides to encroach on the jurisdiction of health, it is essentially proposing to rewrite legislative jurisdiction. Before this government goes full-steam ahead, I would like to invite the federalists to think carefully about their role and the files they were entrusted with when they were elected to Parliament, this distinguished chamber.
Something tells me that my hon. colleagues have a lot of questions for me. Unfortunately I will not be able to answer them. We could always meet in the lobby.
In closing, I would like to wish the thousands of people waiting for a transplant the best of luck with this difficult ordeal, especially during these times and with the holidays right around the corner.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2020-11-30 14:39 [p.2683]
Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline for seniors to submit their income information. Anyone who misses this deadline will stop receiving the guaranteed income supplement in January. We are talking about 12,000 of the poorest Quebeckers. We are talking about people who need help and cannot get help because of COVID-19. In-person services are limited, and we all know that it is nearly impossible to get through to the CRA on the phone.
Can the government assure us that no low-income seniors will lose their guaranteed income supplement in the middle of a pandemic?
View Deb Schulte Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Deb Schulte Profile
2020-11-30 14:40 [p.2683]
Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring that the most vulnerable seniors continue to receive their benefits when they need them the most. Because of our temporary extension, over 200,000 seniors continue receive their GIS and allowance payments, even though they have not been able to submit their 2019 tax information. GIS recipients who have not already filed their tax information should file their taxes as soon as possible. We have sent letters to these seniors, and we have made calls to remind them to do so. We are making sure seniors do get their benefits.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-05 14:51 [p.1747]
Mr. Speaker, more than 60,000 seniors are in danger of having their guaranteed income supplements cut off if their federal tax returns are not received by November 29. We are talking about 60,000 low-income seniors whose life has been hugely complicated by the pandemic. Let us recall that, today still, those over 70 are being told to limit their outings to the bare minimum. For months, all in-person services have been closed and it is almost impossible to get any help from the Canada Revenue Agency.
Can the government reassure us that no seniors in need will have their guaranteed income supplements cut off in the middle of the pandemic?
View Deb Schulte Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Deb Schulte Profile
2020-11-05 14:53 [p.1747]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this issue. I really appreciate her bringing it forward.
Right now our focus is on supporting seniors during this pandemic. We are focused on providing the direct financial supports that seniors need to help cope with added costs and work closely with our community support organizations.
The direct financial support, as the member knows, provides more than $1,500 for low-income couples. We will continue to work to ensure seniors have the supports they need and to be there for seniors.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-28 17:47 [p.1378]
moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am proud to rise in the House today to introduce the bill on a single tax return administered by Quebec. I see this bill as a test for the federal Parliament. Is Ottawa capable of giving Quebec some freedom? Is Ottawa capable of being open to Quebec? Is Ottawa capable of offering Quebec reasonable accommodation? These are the questions this bill asks the House.
As this Parliament has recognized, Quebec is a nation with its own language, culture, values and way of doing things. The problem with the Quebec-Ottawa relationship is that every time Quebec asks Ottawa to accommodate its way of doing things, Ottawa gets irritated, leading to a lengthy tug-of-war. Ottawa generally wins, because otherwise it drags on even longer, since Ottawa is mad.
This Parliament's vision is that of the English Canadian nation. Its government is the one in Ottawa. Its philosophy is to have unilateral policies across the country. When Quebec asks to opt out of a program with compensation, it shatters the English Canadian dream, and that irritates Ottawa because, as a nation, Quebec wants to be able to create and administer its own policies and programs in its own way. The government of my nation is the one that sits in the National Assembly in Quebec City.
Here are some examples from the past and present to illustrate my point.
When we think about this tug-of-war, we think about things like infrastructure, social housing, health care funding with federal standards, the fiscal imbalance, the aerospace industry, the manufacturing industry in international treaties, and the petro-currency. We think about artificial intelligence and our agriculture, particularly supply management. We think about the forestry industry, our forestry regime, language, and the defence of the French language, particularly the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. We think about Quebec's pharmaceutical industry, Ottawa's philosophy of giving everything to oil, and our rail industry, which was abandoned in favour of Siemens and jobs in California. We think about funding for Muskrat Falls and our exclusion from shipbuilding contracts and from the last three trade agreements, which were signed at the expense of critical sectors of Quebec's economy. We think about Ottawa's complacency toward web giants and the use of tax havens. We think about all of the problems with the CRTC, the Internet and cell networks, and the culture and media file.
Frankly, we are not masters in our own house here.
Since the 1980s, we have had the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution, which took place without Quebec and against its will. After that, we had Meech and Charlottetown, which were again a tug-of-war. We can go back even further in time, from the conquest to the occupation of Quebec by the Canadian army in peacetime, to Confederation, the Act of Union, and the merger of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, with its representational bias towards Upper Canada. The Quebec nation, which was called “Canadian” and then “French Canadian” at a given point, was systematically subjected to the will of the English Canadian nation at the expense of sovereignty.
Those were a few examples of the Quebec-Ottawa relationship drama. I will repeat that, in general, Ottawa refuses to let Quebec make or tailor its own policies in its own way. The result is that Ottawa rejects the sovereignty of the Quebec people within the federation. With the Clarity Act, Ottawa outright rejected sovereignty for the people of Quebec. That is a denial of the right of a people to its sovereignty and self-determination in 2020. Welcome to Canada.
This is the context for the bill on a single tax return, to be administered by Quebec. We are not talking about a revolution. It is a simple accommodation that will make life easier for the people and businesses of Quebec. Quite simply, filing one return rather than two eliminates the duplication of effort.
This bill has been universally acclaimed in Quebec and received unanimous support at the Quebec National Assembly. It was backed by all parties: Coalition Avenir Québec, the Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire. Premier François Legault at the Quebec National Assembly then made an official request to the current Prime Minister here in the House.
The polls show the same thing. An overwhelming majority of Quebeckers support this bill. All of corporate Quebec Inc. supports it, including chambers of commerce, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, independent business owners and the Quebec CPA Order, just to name a few. The same is true on the union side. The Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec has been calling for this for many years, with the support of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec. That is a big deal. The bill is good for Quebeckers.
The Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence has conducted studies on the subject and concluded that having one tax return instead of two would save $425 million a year. Individuals would save $39 million, businesses would save $99 million, and $287 million would be saved by eliminating bureaucratic duplication. We are not saying that federal public servants do not do as good a job as Quebec public servants, but they are doing the same thing twice. Our taxes are paying for the same thing to be done twice. Come on.
One extremely important part of this bill as introduced and worded is that it would enable Quebec to crack down on tax havens on its own, rather than be limited by what Ottawa is doing, which is, to all appearances, nothing. This is a pretty simple bill. There is nothing revolutionary about it. It respects the Quebec nation and saves everyone time and money.
When we suggested this idea to the Liberals, they said, why not just let Ottawa handle it? Here was more evidence of the English Canadian nation's desire to unilaterally impose its way of doing things and reject any kind of accommodation for Quebec. Quite simply, taxation is not even a federal jurisdiction; it is Quebec's responsibility. However, the point here is efficiency.
After years of negotiation, Quebec managed to come to an agreement with Ottawa regarding the collection of sales tax from businesses. That was about 30 years ago. Before that, Ottawa collected its GST, and Quebec collected its QST. For the past 30 years, Revenu Québec has been collecting the GST and the QST at the same time. It makes for a lot less paperwork for businesses and generates significant savings. The advantage is that Revenu Québec is present in every region of Quebec, and the system works well. It is a success, and nobody has any complaints.
The preposterous idea presented to us, that is, to have Ottawa collect income tax and have Quebec collect sales tax, makes no sense at all. That would do absolutely nothing to resolve the issue of administrative duplication. If we want to be efficient, everything should be collected by the same body, namely Revenu Québec. Corporate taxes, as well as their employees' taxes, should all be administered in one place. Otherwise, Quebec City and Ottawa would have to communicate to determine who took what amount. This means more duplication, when the whole point is to get away from such duplication.
The idea of a single tax return administered by Quebec is not a new one. For example, 16 years ago, in 2004, Quebec's Liberal finance minister, Yves Séguin, said, “There is no reason to maintain two competing tax collection systems.” That was from a Liberal finance minister in Quebec, who was a federalist. He also said, “The real, most well-established tax administration in Quebec is Revenu Québec.” The logic is impeccable.
As I was saying earlier, on January 17, 2019, the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, acted on the unanimous resolution of the Quebec National Assembly and, for the first time ever, made a formal request from the Government of Quebec to Ottawa. This bill is an opportunity to finally say yes to Quebec. This is a momentous occasion.
I would like to digress for a moment to reassure Canada Revenue Agency employees who work in Quebec. We drafted the bill in such a way as to ensure that all jobs in Quebec would be protected. That is the spirit of the bill, and that is what we want. I went to Jonquière to meet with CRA employees. I have been in contact with employees in Shawinigan. That is really our intention.
Quebec does not have its fair share of federal public servants in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to call for fairness in this regard.
Clearly, the bill seeks to prevent useless duplication. Why pay two people who do the same job instead of paying just one? We propose to reassign jobs and keep positions in the region.
I would also like to remind members that a single tax return will not lead to the Canada Revenue Agency disappearing from Quebec. For example, the 1,300 CRA employees in Shawinigan do not process tax returns. They are responsible for various administrative tasks related to the department's operations. There is nothing preventing the employees from continuing to do the same work.
Even when Revenu Québec becomes responsible for processing tax returns and collecting taxes, the federal government will continue to maintain the registry of the seven million Quebec taxpayers and their tax information. The agency will have to assign more employees to deal with Revenu Québec so as to ensure that the amounts transferred correspond to the taxes collected for every taxpayer. The agency will continue to pay Quebec taxpayers the tax credits to which they are entitled, such as the child tax benefit or the electric vehicle purchase credit. This is the kind of work that can be done from the Jonquière centre.
To be clear, the idea is to avoid duplication. There are so many needs in the public service, and it is so concentrated in Ottawa, that there is room to protect every job. Jobs are important in the regions.
We anticipate that Revenu Québec will hire more people to administer the new tax return, but also, and this is interesting, that it will create a new international tax unit, an area of jurisdiction that is largely missing in Quebec right now and that would help it fight tax havens. That is an extremely important component.
We will see a significantly closer relationship between Revenu Québec and the federal government for sending the taxation data and taxes collected to Ottawa.
As I was saying, the federal administration is highly concentrated. For example, Ottawa has 50% more federal public servants than the entire province of Quebec, and that includes the public servants in Gatineau. It makes no sense for it to be concentrated like that. It is not surprising that the federal programs are so ill suited to regional realities. These programs are disconnected from the rest of the world.
To summarize, we are debating a simple bill. There are two tax returns, and we want to have just one. This will make things easier for people and businesses. It will save us $425 million a year because individuals, businesses and governments will not have to do everything twice.
This bill has unanimous support in Quebec and in the Quebec National Assembly. This bill will allow Quebec to combat the use of tax havens more effectively. This bill will protect CRA employees. We drafted it in such a way as to make sure that happens. The question is whether the Canadian government will once again vote against my nation's legitimate desire. Let the debate begin.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-10-28 18:00 [p.1380]
Mr. Speaker, although I am someone who has a love for the province of Manitoba, which I have stated in the chamber before, many of my ancestors come from the province of Quebec. It is really somewhat sad that I have lost the language that my father and grandmothers on both sides spoke.
However, I can tell my colleagues that one of the benefits of having a stronger national government is that we recognize the importance of the province of Quebec being a francophone entity, much like we promote the French language in other jurisdictions. I am very proud of St. Boniface, for example.
It seems to me that what the Bloc is really striving for is to try to come up with ways in which they can minimize the importance of the national government. A good example of that is what we see today with—
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-28 18:01 [p.1380]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his heartfelt comments.
In my opinion, that is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my speech. My colleague is asking me whether we are weakening the national government. The national government of what nation? We are talking about my nation, the Quebec nation, the nation that speaks French. Its government is in Quebec City and that government wants a single tax return.
The federal government is supposed to oversee the various nations, whether it be the first nations—which are very poorly represented here because there are very few members from indigenous communities—the Quebec nation, the Acadian nation or the English Canadian nation. The role of the federal government is to oversee all of them, but it is the English Canadian nation that is represented.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-10-28 18:03 [p.1380]
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bill that was introduced by my colleague from Joliette. It is a great initiative.
However, in order for us to be able to move this bill forward in the House, we need to be able to speak the truth. There is one thing that worries me. On one hand, my colleague is talking about saving $425 million. On the other hand, he is talking about protecting jobs. I think it will be difficult to do both of those things.
The issue here is cutting down on paperwork for Quebeckers so that they only have to fill out one income tax return. The issue is not saving money.
How can the member claim that this bill will save $425 million while protecting jobs?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-28 18:03 [p.1380]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
His concern is absolutely legitimate. I would like to offer some reassurance. Eliminating duplication saves money. That is clear and inarguable. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, however. What we are saying is that the federal administration does not have enough staff and is too heavily concentrated.
We want to see the same number of jobs maintained in Shawinigan and Jonquière. Some of these employees will no longer handle federal tax returns because we want a single tax return, but they can do other things. They can work in other CRA branches or elsewhere. Just think of the Phoenix pay system, which I believe has a shortage—
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. That was a pretty impressive list he reeled off.
Thanks to the NDP's vision in recognizing Quebec and its autonomy, ours was the first national party to support the principle of a single tax return. We made that official at our 2018 convention.
However, we have concerns about maintaining jobs in the regions. My colleague mentioned the unions, but his opinion is not unanimous. The Quebec chapter of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is part of the FTQ, has serious concerns. We have been talking to those workers for several years now, and the idea of reassignment seems more like magical thinking than a real action plan.
What does my colleague think of that?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-28 18:05 [p.1381]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
We went out and met with workers, and obviously, that is a concern. However, there is unanimous support in Quebec City for one thing: avoiding duplication. We made sure that the bill was drafted in such a way as to do everything we can to maintain jobs.
Right now, we are debating the principle of the bill. I will fight tooth and nail in committee to ensure that these jobs are maintained, since we need them in the regions.
When I talked to people on the ground, they said it was okay. It was representatives from PSAC, regional representatives, who had the greatest concerns. We need to keep talking, but I suspect that their interests were less—
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2020-10-28 18:06 [p.1381]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his presentation.
Speaking personally, what surprises me a bit, and will likely continue to surprise me, is when someone uses the argument that this is going to cost us jobs. Right now, we are doing the same thing twice with the federal and provincial tax returns. It seems obvious to me that we would be able to avoid duplication. It would be pretty easy to get the employees to do something useful, rather than having to do the same thing twice.
In my view, to say this will cost us jobs illustrates the government's ill will. It is as if the government is saying that any savings will not be reinvested in Quebec.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-10-28 18:07 [p.1381]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île just perfectly summed up a key part of the bill.
One aspect that was not calculated in the IRAI study is the fight against tax evasion. By collecting income taxes, Quebec would have access to international information. It could finally start to fight the illegal or immoral use of tax havens, which Ottawa is not doing. This would bring in money, in addition to the $425 million. It would be interesting to see how much more money we could recover.
In my opinion, this is a progressive bill that has unanimous support in Quebec.
Results: 61 - 75 of 106 | Page: 5 of 8

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

For more data options, please see Open Data