Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 106
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity with regard to my time. By the way, I would like to offer you my congratulations. I had the privilege of witnessing your speech yesterday. It was a great lesson in democracy. I was pleased to hear it.
With Bill C-30, the federal government is demonstrating a flagrant lack of consideration for Quebec, its choices and the will of Quebeckers. I wish to remind members that the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2021 because the federal government did not respond to our two main requests, namely to permanently and significantly increase the Canada health transfers by raising them from 22% to 35%, a demand shared by the National Assembly and unanimously supported by the provinces, and to increase old age security by $110 a month for people aged 65 and over.
Despite our reservations, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that budget 2021 is geared towards the post-COVID recovery. It will make it easier for Quebec's small businesses to access credit. It was essential that Bill C‑30 include an increase in credit-related funding for small businesses, especially start-ups, which have been struggling during the pandemic. Bill C‑30 encourages innovation and the potential for a greener economic recovery through its expanded lending against intellectual property.
However, access to credit is not the only way to help businesses recover, as credit often leads to debt, which can push businesses into bankruptcy. Credit becomes harmful when it is used to cover fixed and recurring business costs. In some cases, it merely postpones bankruptcy. What has the government done to revitalize businesses and reduce their administrative burden? Little or nothing.
The government could take action. It has no excuse not to. With a deficit of over $1 trillion, I think it has a some leeway. The federal government is not doing enough to help businesses take advantage of opportunities arising from international agreements. These agreements are so complicated and hard to understand, involving so many laws, regulations, measures, norms and provisions, that it is hard for business owners to properly assess them and see all of the possibilities. There needs to be communication. What is the federal government waiting for? When will it reduce this burden in order to better support businesses in getting their goods to market internationally and strengthen the ability of Quebec and Canadian industries and businesses to compete globally?
I care about Quebec businesses, particularly agricultural businesses, so I find it troubling that the government is doing so little to reduce the tax burden on agricultural business owners. What is more, one of the simplest solutions for reducing the administrative burden on businesses in Quebec is to implement a single tax return administered by Quebec. That is something that has been repeatedly called for by the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, and it reflects the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly.
I will point out that the Government of Quebec already collects the GST on Ottawa's behalf. That means the Government of Quebec has everything it needs to collect all taxes in Quebec. Direct access to foreign tax information would also give the Government of Quebec the power to fight tax havens. Ottawa has no credibility on that front. If Revenu Québec acquires that expertise, it will be in a better position to ensure tax fairness for all Quebec taxpayers.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, which implements certain provisions of budget 2021.
As everyone knows, it is a mammoth and extremely dense bill that contains a wide range of measures. We unreservedly support some of these measures, which we would like to see implemented even if we vote against the budget.
This part of the bill seeks to extend COVID-19 assistance programs, which although not perfect are nevertheless essential, until September. These include the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy. Many businesses that have suffered badly over the past year rely on those programs. Considering how important predictability is in business, of course we are pleased that entrepreneurs will have a clear idea of the programs available to them over the coming months. However, the amounts allocated will decrease gradually throughout the extension period.
However, there is one little thing worth noting. The bill gives the Minister of Finance the power to extend the programs until November 30, 2021, through regulation, without having to go through the legislative process. I believe I am right in thinking and safe in saying that this measure is an insurance policy in case the House is dissolved for a fall election, which would prevent it from enacting a law that would extend the wage subsidy beyond September 27, 2021. I will let my colleagues read between the lines to determine when the government expects the House to resume.
We are particularly pleased that, instead of paying taxes in the year that they received a government assistance cheque and getting a credit in the year that they reimburse the amount, as is currently the case, under Bill C-30, taxpayers will not have to pay taxes on any government assistance that they reimbursed. Those who have just completed their 2020 income tax return could end up paying taxes on the amounts they received through the Canada emergency response benefit. However, even if the government asked them to pay back those amounts, under Bill C-30, any reimbursements made this year make the cheques received last year tax-free.
Another piece of good news is the creation of a hiring subsidy program, which will be in effect from June 6 to November 20, 2021. That program is offered to businesses restarting their activities and hiring or rehiring employees. I am also pleased that taxes will finally be imposed on Internet products and services and Airbnb rentals, which will put an end to the unfair competition that we have strongly criticized.
I would also note the new Canada-wide child care program, even though it is part of a general trend of interference and federal centralization. Fortunately, there is mention of a possible asymmetrical agreement with Quebec and the federal budget statement repeatedly touts the child care system. However, there needs to be assurances that this agreement will translate into full compensation with no strings attached for Quebec for its share of the total cost of the program. Since this federal government likes to interfere in matters that are not under its jurisdiction, I would like to note that family policy and related programs are exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Bill C-30 provides for a one-time payment of just over $130 million to the Government of Quebec to harmonize the Quebec parental insurance plan with the Employment Insurance Act. Since the eligibility criteria and benefit period for EI have been temporarily modified and increased, Quebec has the right to opt out with financial compensation with respect to the maternity and parental benefits program.
However, Bill C-30 also lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime, which the Bloc Québécois and Quebec strongly oppose. This bill provides for a significant increase to the budget of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office, so it is not a stretch to conclude that Ottawa wants to strip Quebec of its financial sector. I remind members that the office was created in 2009, and its purpose is to create a single pan-Canadian securities regulator in Toronto. Bill C-30 authorizes the government to make payments to the transition office in an aggregate amount not exceeding $119.5 million, or any greater amount that may be specified in an appropriation act.
Although the Supreme Court ruled on a number of occasions that securities were not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa finally got the green light in 2018 to interfere in this jurisdiction provided that it co-operate with the provinces and not act unilaterally. History has taught us to be cautious in such situations.
This plan to create a national securities regulator in Toronto is bound to result in regulatory activities transitioning out of Quebec. I will note that the unanimity we have seen in opposition to this bill in Quebec is rather remarkable. All political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, business communities, the financial sector and labour-sponsored funds are against this bill. The list of those who have vehemently expressed their opposition to this initiative includes the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Center, the Desjardins Group and Fonds de solidarité FTQ, as well as most Quebec businesses such as Air Transat, Transcontinental, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale and Molson.
This plan is just bad and must never see the light of day. Contrary to what members opposite are saying, this is more than just a dispute over jurisdictions or a new conflict between the federal government and the provinces. This is quite simply a battle between Bay Street and Quebec. It is an attack on our efforts to keep head offices in the province and preserve our businesses.
Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables access to capital markets for businesses. A strong Quebec securities regulator is essential for the development and vitality of the financial sector. In Quebec, the financial sector accounts for 150,000 jobs and contributes $20 billion to the GDP. That is equivalent to 6.3%. Montreal is the 13th largest financial centre in the world.
A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses. It is a well-known fact that businesses concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their head offices are located. This new attack on Quebec's jurisdictions risks having us go the route of the branch plant economy, to the detriment of Ontario.
This potential exodus of head offices could have serious consequences on every level of our economy, since Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies in Quebec rely more on globalized supply chains. Just imagine the impact that can have on our network of SMEs, particularly in the regions. As we have seen during the pandemic, globalized supply chains are fragile and make us very dependent on other countries. We will not stop fighting against this plan to centralize the financial sector in Toronto.
We will also keep calling out the government for ignoring the demands of the Quebec National Assembly and the provinces and refusing to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. As we know, the government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons, since a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to substantially and permanently increase federal transfers to the provinces was adopted in December 2020.
The government could well have taken advantage of the fact that the deficit announced in budget 2021 was lower than expected, by $28 billion, which is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. With massive spending on the horizon, it is clear that by refusing to increase transfers, the government is making a political choice, not a budgetary choice, to the detriment of everyone's health.
It was a long time coming, but Bill C-30 finally includes the increase to old age security that this government promised during the 2019 election campaign. However, the increase will amount to only $766 per year, or $63.80 per month, and will apply only to seniors aged 75 and over. The increase will not begin until 2022 and is insufficient for seniors and for the Bloc Québécois.
In closing, we will vote in favour of the bill, because we do not want to deprive seniors aged 75 and over of this cheque. We do not want to deprive businesses and workers of the assistance programs they are counting on, but we will continue to fight to ensure that all sectors of Quebec society receive their fair share in a fairer budget in the future.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to follow up on my questions regarding the extension of the tax deadline. I realize the tax deadline has come and gone this year, but my frustration and the frustration of tax preparers and many Canadians in all parts of the country have not gone away.
We are going to hear tonight in the government's response, as we have several times, that the government is there for Canadians every step of the way. If we ask somebody who has been trying to get a hold of CRA these days, I certainly think that is not as applicable.
I know that not only our side of the House but members from every party in this House have been hearing the same thing. Our constituency office has been inundated with calls from people who cannot get through to CRA, who are on hold for three or four hours and are being hung up on.
I want to give credit to my constituency staff of Nicole, Sue, Annette, Adrian and the volunteers in our income tax program for trying to work through the best of a bad situation. Even we cannot get regular service through our problem resolution desk.
There is chaos happening at CRA, and I believe the fact that we were not able to and the government did not extend the tax deadline has actually made the situation worse.
I was speaking with Josée Sauvé from Sauve Tax Services in Cornwall. She alone, on top of all the challenges going on right now, is dealing with 50 cases of fraud of her clients.
We are being told by Service Canada that amended T4Es are only being sent out to people on May 28. People are told to file their taxes; they are getting reassessments and there is confusion. There are more backlogs and delays happening from this.
I go back to my comments and my numerous questions. A lot of this backlog, a lot of this stress that many Canadians are feeling could have been alleviated. The workers at CRA are overwhelmed with call volumes and cases, which could have been decreased with a simple extension of the tax deadline to June 30.
The government says not to worry as there is interest and penalty relief available. That speaks to the irony of what I have been trying to advocate for. What does that mean? It means more paperwork, more forms, more calls to CRA and more backlog. I always say here, in a non-partisan way, that I believe we all mean well in this House, but I believe the CRA minister and the government are making the situation worse by adding to the backlog, to the paperwork, to the calls people have to make and the forms they have to send in. I use a line in municipal politics, and I will say the same thing here in Ottawa: We need to work smarter, not harder.
Last year, we had a pandemic and we were told to stay at home. The government listened to suggestions. I remember standing in the House speaking to members of the government. It was the Deputy Prime Minister who answered my questions and said that we needed to extend the tax deadline. The government did that, to September. The government also extended the transition of benefits that would normally be renewed in July and moved it to September. That made a bad situation bearable last year.
This year, if we think about it, we are in a pandemic. We are still being told to stay home in many parts of this country, and there was no extension of the tax deadline.
We want a detailed answer, not of all the extra paperwork and that there is an extra form to apply for relief and that this can be corrected. Why did the government not just extend the tax deadline to June 30 to take the pressure valve off filers and CRA workers? Why does it take two years for the government to do a budget but it cannot give Canadians an extra two months to get their taxes done?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I would like to take the time to thank my colleague for requesting further information about the CRA's decision to not extend the filing deadline for the 2021 tax year.
Times have been tough for all Canadians this past year. I applaud the Government of Canada, which provided financial support to millions of Canadians who have urgently needed it since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, thus helping them to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads during the crisis. What is more, our government is very aware of the fact that Canadians are still feeling the financial impact of this pandemic.
It is important to point out that our government has taken important steps to support Canadians during the 2020 tax-filing period. In particular, we have strongly encouraged all Canadians to file their income tax return on time so that payments of the benefits and credits to which they are entitled are not delayed. I am referring to the Canada child benefit, the GST/HST credit and provincial and territorial benefits and credits depending on where they live. Extending tax-filing deadlines this year was not possible, as it would have disrupted these essential credit and benefit payments for millions of Canadians.
To serve Canadians well this 2020 tax year, I should also mention that the agency increased the number of agents available in its call centres, extended its hours of operation and enlisted the assistance of a third party service provider to answer general questions about emergency benefits related to COVID-19, in addition to implementing a new automated callback service.
In short, a series of support measures and services have been made available to Canadians to help people file their income tax returns on time and to help ease their financial burden during the challenging times of COVID-19.
I can tell the member that the agency's employees have been hard at work to help all Canadians. CRA has a dedicated and highly skilled workforce committed to serving Canadians according to its people-first philosophy, which places the needs and expectations of Canadians at the centre of everything it does.
Lastly, it should be noted that the statistics have been very positive for the 2021 filing year. Nearly as many Canadians filed on time this year as they did in 2019, our last normal tax-filing year. Despite the assertions of my colleague across the way, Canadians proved that they were, by and large, able to work within the normal filing period.
I invite my colleague opposite to join me in celebrating the CRA's hard work and the hard work accomplished by the millions of Canadians who filed on time during difficult circumstances.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, in my one minute left, I would encourage the member to come and visit my constituency office and see the hundreds of appointments we had to cancel through our volunteer income tax program. People could not come, because we were in a lockdown. We shut down our office, rightfully so, as we were told to do. However, there are many Canadians who do not go out, who do not have access to the Internet or the ability to do their taxes themselves. My staff and I have seen Canadians who have had these challenges.
I will quickly address the comment about benefit extensions, and that the tax deadline could not be extended because it would disrupt the July renewal.
To go back to what happened last year, the CRA and the government were able to extend the tax deadline and move the renewal benefit from July to September. That type of leadership is missing this year, and it was the government's decision. If it could do it last year, it could have done this year but chose not to.
We are going to see a lot of frustration and chaos continue in the coming months. I applaud and thank the people who are working at CRA, but we need to do—
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada encouraged all Canadians to file their taxes on time so that they would not experience any delays in receiving the benefits or credits to which they are entitled. The services offered to Canadians do not end there.
For example, if a person is unable to fully pay an existing debt, there are payment options available to them. If a person is unable to meet their tax obligations due to circumstances beyond their control, they can request the cancellation of penalties and interest charged to their account. In addition, the Government of Canada has introduced targeted relief measures for Canadians who have received financial assistance and benefits related to COVID-19.
The Canadian government has continued to support Canadians by amending its payment expectations in order to give Canadians more time and latitude to pay their tax debt in accordance with their ability to pay.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2021-05-07 13:32 [p.6920]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-210 at third reading. I have already spoken to this bill in the past, last November.
This bill seeks to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to allow the CRA to enter into agreements with the provinces and territories to collect, via income tax returns, any information that Quebec and the provinces require to establish or maintain an organ donor registry. The second part of the bill would allow the CRA to disclose this information to the provinces and territories with which it has entered into an agreement.
I will discuss three different aspects of this bill. First, I will lay out our party's position on this matter. Then I will describe the state of organ donation in Quebec, Canada and the world, and share some examples of cases. Finally, I will talk a little about the ongoing difficulties caused by the pandemic for organ donation.
I will start by stating the Bloc Québécois's position even though this bill will not affect Quebec at all. Let me explain. We still want Quebec to administer its own single tax return. That is no secret. Even though we have not yet made that happen, Quebec can get all the information it needs to have its own income tax return. The Bloc Québécois therefore has no problem with this bill, but Quebec is unlikely to want to enter into an agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency because Quebec, as I said, already has its own tax return.
Let me reiterate that what the Bloc Québécois wants is to implement a single tax return—I am giving a shout-out to my colleague from Joliette—that is administered by Quebec, which means that this bill would not affect Quebec at all. Even if Quebec wanted to enter into an agreement, we would have no problem with the idea of sharing this information. Quebec is free to enter into an agreement or not. This bill does not commit Quebec to anything or limit it in any way. Allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to collect information as part of an agreement with a participating province 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.
I will give a few examples where that has already been put in place in Canada. Nova Scotia recently passed a law to reverse consent for organ donation. Nova Scotians are now deemed to be consenting unless they state otherwise. Nova Scotia's decision to adopt this policy of presumed consent to organ donation has pushed some provinces to consider whether that is the best solution to increase the number of donors. Survivors and loved ones think that it is, but the answer is not that simple for some experts.
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. While New Brunswick is looking at the idea closely, the governments of Quebec and British Columbia will be closely 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 similarly high organ donation rate.
What experts do agree on is that better training is needed for medical teams and, above all, people need to talk about organ donation with their friends and family. This is yet another argument for improving funding for the health care system.
This debate is gaining momentum in Quebec. I once had the opportunity to witness a heated debate on this topic at a policy convention. Quebeckers are supposed to indicate on their health card whether they consent to organ donation in the event of death. 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 that the Bloc Québécois is still advocating for, which is the importance of increasing health transfers to Quebec and the provinces. It is only logical. Without additional funding, it would be difficult for Quebec and the provinces to have these medical specialists. The federal government had a chance to increase these transfers in the latest budget, but all we heard was radio silence.
In addition, the number of potential donors is relatively limited, which further complicates things. Statistics drawn from current events speak for themselves. 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, or CIHI.
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, and 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. One of the reasons for the increased number of transplants is that many countries have expanded deceased organ donation practices 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. 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.
I will now talk about a few cases. I was recently very touched by the testimony of a mother who spoke about her son, Justin Lefebvre, who drowned at a party. He unfortunately died far too young. As we can read on the website, Justin, who was eight years old, became a superhero because, by donating his organs, he saved the lives of four children and helped them regain their health. One of his friends and his family had the idea of creating a foundation to honour his memory, but especially to promote organ donation, increase awareness and raise money for research. I therefore invite members to visit the Fondation Justin Lefebvre website to find out more about this touching story. His mother also wrote a book about his story, which I recommend reading.
I also already talked about Sammy, a young boy from Montreal who was diagnosed four years ago with Kawasaki syndrome, a childhood illness that leads to heart complications. He has been living with a new heart for three years now. He is in good health and obviously believes in mandatory organ donation.
Linda Paradis's life was turned upside down at age 60, more than two years ago, when her lungs started to deteriorate. This active businesswoman from Quebec suddenly learned she had a few weeks to live. She ended up getting a double lung transplant. She believes in presumed consent, but knows that no doctor can remove organs without the family's consent.
I would like to add that the pandemic has exacerbated problems with 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. 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. Despite the resumption of activities in April, 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 invite people to visit the Facebook page “Le Don d'organes parlons-en, parlez-en”. Beyond just talking about it, however, I would suggest that we do something about it.
View Terry Dowdall Profile
CPC (ON)
View Terry Dowdall Profile
2021-05-07 13:52 [p.6924]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a great pleasure to rise today in this chamber to speak to Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act, organ and tissue donors.
This is a common-sense, non-partisan piece of legislation that should be supported by every single member of this House. I want to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Confederation, for this great initiative.
Most Canadians would agree that donating their organs is an important thing to do. We all know that it can save lives. In fact, it is estimated that organ donation by one person can save up to eight lives. A single tissue donor can improve the lives of up to 75 people. Something that many people do not know is that there are three ways that they can donate here in Canada. The first is after neurological determination of death, what is commonly called brain-dead. The second is after circulatory death, or when someone's heart stops. Let us not forget the third one, which is living organ donors where someone can give away certain organs or parts of their organs while still alive. Living donors often give part of their liver, pancreas, intestine or a lobe of their lung to a family member in need, but it does not have to be a family member; living donors can donate to anyone in need.
While we often use the term organ donation, I want to make it clear that we are also including tissues and that tissues are also critical to improve the lives of others. In fact, tissue donation is often more commonplace. People may be surprised to learn that skin can be donated as well; so can tendons and even eyes. A donated heart valve can save a life. One can also be a living donor and donate tissues. Bone marrow is a common procedure that many of us are aware of and so is the most common tissue that we all donate, which would be blood.
To give everyone a sense of what impact the donation of one person's organs can make, let us look at the tragic case of Logan Boulet. Logan, who died on April 7, 2018, in the aftermath of the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash, was an organ donor. Six other people were able to have their lives saved through his organs. Our annual Green Shirt Day was created to honour, remember and recognize all the victims and families of that fatal crash and to continue Logan's legacy by inspiring Canadians to talk to their families and register as organ donors.
I have always figured that, if we ask them, most people would indicate an interest in donating an organ, but I also figured that the majority of them would not, for various different reasons. When preparing to give this speech, I learned the actual numbers. The difference between those who support organ donation and those who are organ donors is even more stark than I expected. Ninety per cent of Canadians approve of organ and tissue donation, but only 20% are actually registered as organ donors. That is an astounding 70% gap, which needs to be addressed. Only about 21 in a million Canadians actually become an organ donor. Spain has the highest organ donation rate. It is twice that of Canada, at 43.4 people per million. That still seems like a low number, but those extra numbers do save lives.
Every day in this country, close to 5,000 of our fellow Canadians desperately need an organ transplant. Hundreds of them die waiting for that transplant. What is the problem? Why are so many people who indicate an interest not registered to donate their organs? There are a number of factors, each of which is addressed by this excellent bill.
The organ donation network in this country is managed by each province and territory. Each one has a different system to encourage people to sign up as an organ donor. Some are more successful than others, but all are based on the opt-in premise and usually related to their driver's licence or their health care card. For those of us who have signed up as organ donors, it would appear to be a successful system, but that certainly would not be accurate. As I outlined earlier, using the existing opt-in method has given Canada one of the poorest organ donor rates in the industrialized world. In fact, compared to our peers, Canada comes in at number 19 globally. I know we can all do better.
When we talk to people in the field, they say it is always education that matters. Simply put, there is not enough awareness about how to become an organ donor. We need more people to know about it, but we also need to make it easier. It is not simple and it sure is not straightforward.
People have to sort through a lot of paperwork, and it is often the last thing people think of when getting their health care card or driver’s licence. In today’s busy click-based world, we need to make it as easy and straightforward as possible for everyone to do. We need to make sure it is right there in people’s faces so that saying yes to saving a life is just as easy as checking a box.
Also problematic, especially for those needing organ donations, is the declining rate of young people who have actually passed their driving test and received their driver’s licence in provinces where being an organ donor is linked to driver’s licences. Members may be surprised to learn that only 69% of 19-year-olds have a driver’s licence today. This is a 20% drop from the previous generation and a full 31% of our youth who could not agree to become organ donors even if they wanted to in some of those provinces.
Even more surprising is when we look at today’s 16-year-olds. We see an incredible 47% decline in licensed 16-year-old drivers today versus a generation ago. I would argue that if we broke these numbers down further, the numbers would be even lower for youth living in our major cities, where urban transit, biking and more walkable neighbourhoods further depress the need for a driver’s licence. That is a very low number of potential organ donors for the future, especially in major cities.
In short, if we are relying on driver’s licences to recruit the youth of today to be tomorrow’s organ donors, we are already facing an uphill battle. Using health cards may be more effective, but neither is as effective as it could be. We know that we can do better.
The member for Calgary Confederation has proposed a way to make organ donations easier for everyone. It is a way that will ensure that our youth are more likely to be included. It also makes doing something that we all find painful, which is taxes, a little more worthwhile. Bill C-210 would allow people to sign up to be an organ donor while completing their tax return. Put another way, doing taxes may help someone save a life. It takes a little sting out of doing taxes, does it not?
I think we can all agree that most Canadians know that they can register to be on the voters list when doing their taxes. In fact, I would estimate that is how most of us do it already. If passed, Bill C-210 would have a section added right there on page one of the tax form alongside the section from Elections Canada. If a Canadian agrees to be an organ donor, then their information will be provided to their respective province or territory. It is that simple. Even members of the House of Commons would be able to help promote it, as our staff would be able to highlight this section whenever our offices are put on clinics to help our constituents with their taxes.
For whatever reason, there will never be a 100% organ donation rate. I know that this simple and straightforward change would increase our dismal number and that it would save lives. The most surprising thing about the bill is that it actually needs to be done at all. It is such a practical solution that one would assume this is the way it always has been done, even though it is not.
My colleague from Calgary Confederation came close in the last Parliament to making it reality. This bill could be passed quickly and unanimously through all stages in the House. It is my hope that in this same spirit, it continues to move quickly through this Parliament again. There are thousands of Canadians and their families counting on us to do the right thing. I want to thank the member for Calgary Confederation for introducing this excellent piece of legislation.
My father passed away during the election process. I had to drive to see him with my sister. He was 80 years old. He unfortunately had not filled that out. He had a brain aneurysm. They asked whether he would want to donate his organs and my sister and I knew my father would want to do that if given the opportunity. We did sign off on that, but I think if it was simpler, my father would have made that decision ahead of time and it would not have been something that we had to do.
I thank my friend, the member for Calgary Confederation, for this bill. I urge all members to push this through as quickly as possible.
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak to the importance of creating and maintaining an organ and tissue donor registry for every province and territory in Canada.
There are currently far too few Canadians on the list of organ and tissue donors, and that needs to be remedied. The Government of Canada is firmly committed to improving the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system in Canada for Canadians to have quicker and more efficient access to this care.
I have to thank the member for Calgary Confederation for bringing attention back to the issue of organ and tissue donation by introducing Bill C-210, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to organ and tissue donors. Making this change to the Canada Revenue Agency Act will certainly benefit Canadians by considerably increasing the number of potential donors in Canada.
The Government of Canada will support Bill C-210.
The Government of Canada recognizes the value of organ and tissue donation and transplantation. It also recognizes the important role it has to play in protecting the health and safety of Canadians, and has made several investments to date to support this goal. For example, since 2018 Health Canada has been leading the organ donation and transplantation collaborative. In addition to Health Canada's professionals, this collaborative engages with the provinces and territories, patient and family groups, representatives, researchers, clinical organ and tissue donation organizations and Canadian Blood Services.
I want to note that Canadian Blood Services, a not-for-profit charitable organization funded by the Government of Canada, manages the national waiting list and interprovincial organ-sharing registry. Part of the collaborative's mission is to improve the efficiency of the donation and transplant system in Canada. I can assure members that, in partnership with the Government of Canada, it is working hard to establish leading practices, strengthen professional education and raise public awareness to improve organ tissue donations in Canada.
Second, as a reminder of the Government of Canada's commitment to organ and tissue donation and transplantation, I would like to mention the investments made in budget 2019.
Our government allocated $36.5 million over five years starting in 2019-20 and $5 million a year after that to Health Canada. This money is earmarked to develop a pan-Canadian data and performance system for organ donation and transplantation. Improving consistency and quality in data and allowing more donors and recipients to be effectively matched are priority objectives of this investment.
The Government of Canada is investing these significant amounts to help Canadians move to a more coordinated and effective approach to organ and tissue donation and transplantation. Bill C-210 would do this through the addition of subsections 63.1(1) and (2). I firmly believe that we will be taking another step towards increasing the number of donors on the waiting list in Canada.
Currently, each province and territory in Canada is responsible for creating and maintaining its own organ and tissue donor registry. Each province and territory is also responsible for obtaining informed consent from every enrolled donor. The legal requirements for donor suitability and informed consent, which fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, are complex and vary widely across Canada.
For this reason, the amendment to Bill C-210 would allow the CRA to work in partnership with each jurisdiction to reach an agreement under the modification of paragraphs 63.1(1) and (2). In implementing some of the amendments in Bill C-210, the CRA would continue to respect the important role of the provinces and territories in organ and tissue donation, as well as to ensure the personal information of Canadians is handled in a secure manner.
The Government of Canada has full confidence in the CRA's ability to negotiate these agreements and to prioritize the safekeeping of Canadians' personal information. Ultimately, this initiative would advance the partnerships with provinces and territories that are essential to making real, positive changes for Canadians in organ and tissue donation.
That said, I should point out that the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge proposed a much simpler, faster and more direct method that would have achieved the same result.
Rather than having the Canada Revenue Agency directly collect donor consent on behalf of the provinces and territories, which would involve long negotiations because each province and territory has different eligibility criteria, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge proposed asking Canadian taxpayers whether they would like to receive information about organ and tissue donation in their province or territory so they could decide whether to register to be added to the donor list.
The CRA would then confidentially provide the names of these potential donors to the provinces and territories in question, which would then send documentation to these potential donors and get the appropriate registration process started.
For this reason, the amendment proposed by the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge would have deleted the reference of proposed subsections 63.1(1) and 63.1(2) in the current bill, which refer to the income tax returns filed under paragraph 150(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
This method was inspired by the approach taken by the Government of Ontario, which includes a separate page in the Ontario taxpayers' income tax return for provincial benefits. Once the CRA has processed an Ontario tax return, this benefit information is forwarded to the Ontario government, which processes the benefit using its own system and methodology.
While I regret that the amendments proposed by my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge were not adopted, the government and I will nevertheless continue to support this bill.
In conclusion, there are far too few organ and tissue donors on waiting lists in Canada. However, by working together at the national level, we can improve the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system to ensure that Canadians have timely and effective access to care. Furthermore, if this bill is passed, which we hope it is, the government sincerely believes that the Canada Revenue Agency can play a significant role in this process.
View Doug Shipley Profile
CPC (ON)
Currently, 4,600 Canadian are awaiting a life-saving organ transplant. Polls have shown that 90% of Canadians approve of organ and tissue donation, but the reality is about only 25% of Canadians have registered their consent with the province or territorial registry where they live. This creates numerous issues that I will address shortly, but Bill C-210 is simple. The legislation asks Canadians when filing their taxes if they consent to having the provincial or territorial government informed of their desire to be added to the organ and tissue donor registry in the province or territory.
One hurdle to this is that currently the Canada Revenue Agency forbids the use of the income tax form for any purpose other than tax administration. For this simple change to be implemented, asking a simple question regarding organ and tissue donation, a legal exemption needs to be created. This has been done before to allow Elections Canada to ask Canadians for updated contact information, so it is not out of context.
Making a simple line addition to the tax form would have little to no cost implications and it would not infringe on any provincial jurisdictional concerns or create any privacy concerns. The legislation would allow for the use of established protocols for information sharing between the federal government and provinces as they currently use an encrypted method to share sensitive information. Another reason that this simple addition to the tax form makes sense is that we see the current voluntary method of registering is not proactive or effective.
Another unfortunate complicating factor with donation, particularly when someone passes away, is a grey area that exists for hospitals and families. Sometimes there is confusion between family and what exactly the wishes of the deceased are with respect to organ and tissue donation.
In the Standing Committee on Health report on organ donation in Canada, Dr. Levy, vice-president of Medical Affairs and Innovation at Canadian Blood Services, says, “it behooves us not to miss the opportunity...to use that donation of an organ or set of organs.”
In 2016, 260 Canadians died while waiting for a transplant. While Canada has seen an uptake in living and deceased organ donations, Canada ranks among the top 20% of countries in the world when it comes to deceased donor rates. It was also noted that those rates were half the rate of some other high-performing countries in the world, for example, Spain.
Dr. Levy noted to the committee “Our living donation rate, on the other hand, compares quite favourably internationally...Canada ranked 14th internationally for living donors in 2016”, even with the rates declining or staying stagnant. We can do better; we need to do better. If we do not make changes now, the issue is only going to get worse.
Currently, donation rates are not meeting the needs of patients' needs. There is a fragmented approach across the country with respect to donation programs and some areas are considered the gold standard while others are facing challenges. It is incumbent upon us in the House to ensure that provinces have the tools to deliver for those in need. Supporting the private member's bill of my colleague from Calgary Confederation is the smartest and most effective way of doing that right now.
Several issues with respect to organ donation in Canada were highlighted to the committee in testimony. Some gaps in the systems and reporting and classification of the need and type of donation needed are a couple.
A couple of things jumped out to me as I was researching for this topic. The total annual costs of dialysis range from $56,000 to $107,000 per patient, where the cost of a transplant is about $65,000 in year one and $23,000 in subsequent years. It is estimated the health care system would save up to $84,000 per patient per transplant annually.
The National Transplant Research Program explained to the committee that organ transplantation was not only a treatment option for people facing organ failure, it was becoming the preferred treatment for ailments such as type I diabetes, kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, heart failure and congenital heart disease, lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia.
Giving the provinces the ability to obtain accurate and up-to-date information on donation intentions allows them to ensure their wait-lists are accurate. Knowing who intends to donate through a legally binding declaration would further address consistency for provinces when it comes to measuring and reporting those willing to donate so that they can better prepare. The member for Calgary Confederation's private member's bill would address all of these. This is not a political issue. As my colleague said in his original speech in the previous session, this is a human issue.
Anyone in this House, family or friends, could need donor organs or tissue at any time. Adding a simple line item to the tax form could save hundreds of lives. If we couple that with increased public education and awareness, we could see even more registrations. We saw in the fall of 2018, in the tragic accident with the Humboldt hockey team, that one of the victims, young Logan Boulet, had registered for a donation. That donation saved six lives, as Ms. Ronnie Gavsie, President and Chief Executive Officer, Trillium Gift of Life Network noted at committee when testifying.
The time has come for this legislation to pass this House and the Senate. My colleague from Calgary Confederation has spoken eloquently and dedicated his efforts to his friend, Robert Sallows. The legislation has received support from all parties in this House and stakeholders have been universally supportive of the bill. Families who have loved ones awaiting this are welcoming this legislation. It is now up to everyone in this House to make sure that we do not delay this much-needed legislation any further. We owe it to the hundreds of people who pass away every year on the wait-list. We owe it to the organizations on the front lines and we owe it to the provinces to give them the tools they need to adequately support and deliver their donation programs.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, today is the tax-filing deadline, which is a day dreaded by millions of Canadians. Despite the third wave of a pandemic, nearly one million taxpayers locked out of the CRA online portal, record wait times to contact CRA, and the call of millions of Canadians, tax professionals and opposition parties, this government has stubbornly refused to extend the tax-filing deadline.
Will this government, which took two years to file a budget of its own, give Canadians a much-needed break and extend the tax-filing deadline?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is stressful for Canadians, and we will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
An update to the Canada.ca website temporarily disabled the website's web links necessary to access CRA portals. Let me be clear. At no point was CRA's IT infrastructure seriously compromised, and the glitch was very brief. The situation is now resolved, and Canadians can access those services, which have been restored.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the government's response to our ask to extend the tax deadline is absolutely tone deaf. We are not talking about a glitch on a website. We are talking about millions of Canadians, who are being told to stay at home, who cannot complete their taxes by the deadline. They are going to miss out on benefits. There will be gaps and continued chaos. They call CRA and are on the phone for four hours. They have asked for things to be mailed to them, but they have not arrived yet, and the deadline is here.
Our ask is very clear. Why will the government not show some compassion and common sense and extend the tax deadline to June 30 to give people the relief they deserve and need?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is stressful for Canadians, and we will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that the recipients of emergency recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 income tax returns. The CRA also has strong taxpayer relief provisions in place, which allow taxpayers to be relieved of penalties and interest if these were incurred for reasons beyond their control. These measures will ensure that Canadians who need help this tax season will receive it.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:34 [p.6485]
moved:
That, given that the pandemic and the pressure it is putting on public finances has created the urgent need to close the loopholes being taken advantage of by some taxpayers through the use of tax havens, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how happy I am to speak to this motion today. I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for supporting me in this presentation.
As we face a major public finance crisis, we must look at how we could eventually balance our public finances. Two options are always available to governments: increasing taxes or reducing services. This means taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets or imposing austerity measures. However, while we are thinking of ways to make the people take their medicine, some people are avoiding doing their duty and not contributing according to their means.
In his speech to Congress this week, President Biden said that, according to one study, 55 of the largest businesses in the United States did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year, although they made some $40 billion in profits during the same period. How can that be?
There are two mechanisms that allow companies to shelter income from taxes. First, there are tax loopholes, which are measures provided for by law. When people have enough money, they can hire an army of accountants and tax experts to find the best ways of avoiding paying their fair share. It does not matter whether we are talking about an individual or a business. President Biden referred to the wealthiest people in the U.S., whose tax rate is lower than that of the middle class. That is unacceptable, despicable and scandalous. We need to look at tax loopholes.
There are also tax havens. What is a tax haven? It is a territory where income tax is almost non-existent. Businesses create satellite companies, and sometimes fictitious subsidiaries, in these territories to shelter their profits from the taxman. These subsidiaries exist only to enable companies to shelter their assets from taxes. They do not engage in any business activities or operations. They are empty shells that enable companies to avoid paying their fair share to society.
However transparent or opaque tax havens may be, everyone knows about them and about their impact on public finances. These schemes set up by accountants and other financiers or tax experts can go as far as tax evasion, simply hiding their clients’ income and wealth from the tax authorities. All these mechanisms are ways that some people use to avoid paying their fair share to the government, while other taxpayers continue to pay.
What makes this even more troubling is that, in many cases, these tax havens allow for tax avoidance or tax evasion and often become essential links in international criminal activity, making it possible for organized crime to launder money. Governments are powerless in the face of these tax havens, which create, or are complicit in, tax inequity among countries.
With advances in technology it is very easy to instantly transfer information and money, which makes it much more difficult to track operations.
In 2016, economist and legal expert James S. Henry calculated that a mind-boggling total of more than $36 trillion U.S. was in tax havens. We are talking about 36 trillion American dollars.
In 2017, no less than 40% of international financial transactions allegedly passed through tax havens, in one way or another, according to economist Gabriel Zucman.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that the use of tax havens cost governments a staggering $800 billion. This represents approximately $600 billion a year in corporate taxes and $200 billion a year in personal income taxes.
Tax havens are therefore a political issue that the House must absolutely address. Eliminating them is in the interest of our citizens. We must no longer give a free ride to profiteers, who have a vested interest in keeping these tax havens in place.
Canadian companies are far from being above reproach, since one-third of all Canadian foreign investments are in tax havens. According to Statistics Canada, Canadian businesses invested $381 billion in the 12 main tax havens in 2019.
That same year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that these were not really investments, but actually accounting operations aimed at avoiding paying tax. The Canada Revenue Agency estimated that Canadian businesses' investments in tax havens deprive the government of $11.4 billion in tax annually, and that large companies are responsible for 75% of this amount. That is four times more than the CRA estimated it loses to investments in tax havens by individuals in a report published a year earlier. I think that we need to recognize that there is a certain laxity, and that we need to react.
In 2018, the Minister of National Revenue boasted in the House that the Canada Revenue Agency was going to recover $15 billion as a result of its international tax investigations. The CRA's annual report indicates a far more modest result. It mentions a paltry $25 million, 600 times less than the minister estimated.
We recently learned that, five years after the Panama papers leak, the Canada Revenue Agency had yet to lay charges and had only claimed $21 million in unpaid taxes for the entire country.
Revenu Québec, however, recovered $21 million in addition to the $12 million it claimed and that remains unpaid, for a total of $33 million, for Quebec alone. It did so without the benefit of the international tax information the Canada Revenue Agency has access to.
It therefore appears that the Canada Revenue Agency and the federal government are among the most lax when it comes to prosecuting tax fraud. Moreover, the federal government is complicit in the increased use of tax havens because it literally legalized their use.
In 1994, Jean Chrétien's Liberal government allowed companies to repatriate the income earned in Barbados without paying a penny in tax. Paul Martin, who was finance minister at the time, took advantage of the regulatory change to register his company Canada Steamship Lines there.
Stephen Harper's Conservative government went even further, making a regulatory change that legalized 18 new tax havens. Five more have been added since then, 3 under the current Liberal government's previous mandate, which makes it 23 tax havens legalized through regulation.
The House of Commons never had a word to say about it. This major change was made by simple regulatory amendment, which the government tried to hid in a mishmash of documents.
As I said earlier, all of these changes were made by way of regulation. The House of Commons was never asked to consider the matter. Canada therefore plays a major role in international tax havens, but we wonder whether it is doing so for the right reasons.
There is a close connection between the federal government and certain West Indian tax havens, since Canada speaks not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of some of these tax havens. I am talking about countries like Barbados, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia, for which Canada speaks at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund. That is unbelievable.
It appears, then, that tax havens have decided that Canada should defend their interests before international financial institutions, but who is defending the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians?
In addition to this highly questionable situation, we see that the digital multinationals have VIP passes that allow them to do business in Canada without paying a cent in taxes. The budget contained some indications that this will change, but why did the government wait so long, when businesses in Quebec and Canada pay their taxes?
The federal government, with its careless and cavalier attitude, has been complicit in allowing this loss of revenue for our public purse. Quebec has no fiscal leeway because it needs to know an income exists to be able to tax it. However, it is the federal government that signs the tax agreements and information-sharing agreements so it is the only one authorized to request tax information, pursuant to the Income Tax Act.
Quebec, in particular, is losing out on revenue because of Ottawa's complacency, and, as I was saying, Quebec does not have much leeway. All of this lost revenue could be put towards much-needed investments in health care, education and infrastructure.
It is also unfortunate that the single tax return bill was not passed, because it would have given Revenu Québec direct access to foreign tax information. That would have been a good thing, because Revenu Québec has proven much more effective than the Canada Revenue Agency in recovering money hidden in tax havens. If Revenu Québec was able to do better than the CRA using only the information it obtained from media leaks, imagine what it could do if it had direct access to foreign tax information.
Motion No. 69 proposes several solutions. It proposes to:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
We would also need to repeal subsection 5907(1) of the Income Tax Regulations, which I talked about earlier. The motion also proposes to:
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
We are talking about “shell companies” that do not engage in any real business activity but should be paying taxes in Canada. The motion also proposes to:
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
In 2019, Canada's big six banks generated record profits of $46 billion, 50% more than five years before. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion. Their profits are going up, but they are paying less tax. We can only assume this is because they are investing in tax havens.
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-04-28 14:50 [p.6296]
Mr. Speaker, this year has been a very difficult year with the global pandemic of COVID-19, and it has been a very complex tax season for a lot of families. We know that families that depend on benefits to keep food on the table and pay their rent need to file their taxes, but they just need more time. The deadline is fast approaching. It is this Friday.
My direct question for the Prime Minister is: Will he extend the filing deadline for taxes so families can continue to get the support they so desperately need?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-04-28 14:50 [p.6296]
Mr. Speaker, throughout this pandemic CRA has been there to support Canadians, including delivering the CERB, recovery benefits and the wage subsidy. For this tax season we are providing targeted interest relief to Canadians who received COVID-related income supports. They will not be required to pay interest on any outstanding income tax debt for the 2020 tax year until April 30, 2022. We will continue to be there for Canadians who need support, and get Canadians through this crisis.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on the upcoming tax deadline and my continued concern that millions of Canadians are vulnerable to losing the benefits being renewed this July because they have not been able to get their taxes done.
The government says it cannot do it, but let us take a look at last year. We were in a pandemic, we were under lockdown and people were asked to stay at home. The government said it would move the tax deadline to September and make sure there is a smooth transition of benefits. Let us fast-forward to this year. We are in a pandemic, we are in lockdowns because we do not have enough vaccines and we are being asked to stay at home. However, the government says it is not going to move the deadline.
The reason this matters is that there are thousands of people who cannot complete their taxes at home. They do not have computers, so they are not capable of doing that. I see that. Thousands of constituents were in my office this past year and they had to cancel this month because they were asked to stay at home and not get their taxes completed.
We need to help vulnerable people and we need to make sure there is a smooth transition. The government should be compassionate and reasonable, and extend the deadline two months to help millions of Canadians out.
View Marc Dalton Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, the tax-filing deadline is right around the corner, and many Canadians and their accountants are stressed.
The Liberals' delays in securing the vaccines allowed for this third wave to strike hard. So many Canadians have seen their jobs disappear or businesses close. Covering the basics like rent, paying the mortgage or groceries is difficult. They need relief from the extra stress of a looming tax bill.
Last year, the minister did the right thing. Will she please do the right thing again this year?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, our government understands that tax season is stressful for Canadians. We will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of the emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 tax returns.
The Canada Revenue Agency has also put in place robust taxpayer relief provisions that grant them relief from penalties or interest incurred for reasons beyond their control.
These measures ensure that Canadians who need help during tax season will get it.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians are at risk of having their benefits cut off this July because they have not been able to get their taxes done by going out. They are not able to do their own taxes at home and they rely on tax preparers. We are talking about seniors, parents, those with disabilities and those on a fixed income. We need compassion during these challenging times.
Let me ask a question of the minister responsible. If the government can take two years to prepare a budget, why can Canadians not get an extra two months to file their taxes when they are being told they must stay at home?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is stressful for Canadians. We will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of emergency response and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they file their 2020 tax returns. The CRA also has strong taxpayer relief provisions in place through which taxpayers can be relieved of penalties and interest if these are incurred for reasons beyond their control.
These measures ensure that Canadians who need help this tax season will get it.
View Luc Desilets Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Desilets Profile
2021-04-19 14:41 [p.5807]
Mr. Speaker, to make life simpler for Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec has announced that it is extending by a month the deadline for filing tax returns. Last year, the federal government did the same thing, but this year it is hesitating.
Quebeckers will have a reprieve from filing their provincial tax return with Quebec, but not their federal tax return. It is nice to get a bit of help, but if the help is lopsided then we are no further ahead.
Will the federal government follow Quebec's lead and give taxpayers and accountants another break during these extremely trying times?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is stressful for Canadians. We will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of the emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 tax returns. The Canada Revenue Agency has also put in place robust taxpayer relief provisions that grant them relief from penalties or interest incurred for reasons beyond their control.
These measures ensure that Canadians who need help during tax season will get it.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
View Alain Rayes Profile
2021-04-19 14:53 [p.5809]
Mr. Speaker, one million Canadians still do not have access to their Canada Revenue Agency accounts.
The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to extend the deadline for tax returns until June 30, so this issue can be fixed. It is a simple, clear request that makes perfect sense.
Will the Prime Minister agree to extend the deadline for federal tax returns until June 30, yes or no?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that tax season is particularly stressful for Canadians this year. We will continue to be there for them at every step of the process.
I encourage all Canadians to file their taxes on time, to prevent any delays in the benefits and credits they are entitled to. Canadians can easily file their taxes online or on paper, and some can even do so over the phone.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
View Alain Rayes Profile
2021-04-19 14:54 [p.5809]
Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the minister did not understand the question at all.
There are one million files that Canadians cannot access. Quebeckers are already living in a ridiculous situation. It is the only province in Canada where individuals have to file two tax returns because the Liberals have refused the unanimous request of the Quebec National Assembly to resolve this situation.
This is a simple request to help people during the pandemic.
Why is the government refusing to make life easier for Quebeckers during this difficult time by extending the deadline for federal tax returns until June 30, as the province has already done?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we announced in February that people who receive emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 tax returns.
We have also put in place robust taxpayer relief provisions that grant them relief from penalties or interest incurred for reasons beyond their control. These measures ensure that Canadians who need help during tax season will get it.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, as Canadians are now facing the third wave of the global pandemic, the tax filing deadline is quickly approaching. Filing taxes is a stressful time for everyone, but in a global pandemic, it can be downright harrowing. Conservatives believe that the tax filing deadline should be extended to provide relief for those who are struggling.
Will the minister consider extending the individual tax filing deadline until June 30, as Conservatives are calling for?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is stressful for Canadians. Our government will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they file their 2020 income tax returns. The CRA also has strong taxpayer relief provisions in place through which taxpayers can be relieved of penalties and interest if these are incurred for reasons beyond their control. These measures will ensure that Canadians who need help this tax season will get it.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will take that as a “no”.
This tax season our government has locked nearly one million taxpayers out of their CRA My Account because of its lacklustre cybersecurity. Many people are struggling to regain access to their accounts, which they need to file their taxes.
Will the government please consider giving a couple of extra months for Canadians to file their taxes? It took the government nearly two years to table a budget.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is a stressful one for Canadians. Our government will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
I encourage all Canadians to file their returns on time, so the delivery of the benefits and credits to which they are entitled are not disrupted. Canadians can easily file online, by paper or, for specific individuals, by phone.
View Leona Alleslev Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, April is personal tax season and with the deadline fast approaching, Canadians are feeling overwhelmed. Lockdowns, business closures, layoffs and job loss are only a few issues that have made tax filing more complicated and time consuming than ever before. Accountants, tax consultants and individuals in my riding and across the country are pleading for more time.
Will the minister urgently address this unnecessary added stress and extend the annual tax filing deadline?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, as I stated for the hon. member's colleague earlier on in the session, our government understands this tax season is a stressful one for Canadians and our government will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 income tax returns. The CRA also has strong taxpayer relief provisions in place, where taxpayers can be relieved of penalties and interest if these are incurred for reasons beyond their control. These measures will ensure that Canadians—
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-04-15 14:26 [p.5676]
Mr. Speaker, the third wave of COVID-19 is hitting hard. This is a difficult time. On top of this third wave, tax season is upon us. People need help, as they risk losing the benefits they need. We need to help people.
Will the Prime Minister commit to giving Canadians more time to file their taxes, as he did in the first wave?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that this tax season is stressful for Canadians. We will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of the emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 tax returns. The Canada Revenue Agency has also put in place robust taxpayer relief provisions that grant them relief from penalties or interest incurred for reasons beyond their control.
These measures ensure that Canadians who need help during tax season will get it.
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2021-04-15 15:02 [p.5683]
Mr. Speaker, in light of all the administrative problems that the Canada Revenue Agency is having due to the Liberals' poor planning, Canadians will have a hard time producing the necessary documents to file their 2020 tax return by the April 30 deadline.
Can the government extend the filing deadline without penalizing Canadian taxpayers?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our government understands full well that this is a stressful tax season for all Canadians. We will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
In February, we announced that recipients of the emergency and recovery benefits would be eligible for interest relief if they filed their 2020 tax returns. The Canada Revenue Agency has also put in place robust taxpayer relief provisions that grant them relief from penalties or interest incurred for reasons beyond their control. These measures will ensure that Canadians who need help during tax season will get it.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-04-14 14:59 [p.5563]
Mr. Speaker, it has been five years since the Panama papers came to light, and we know that Revenu Québec recovered $21.2 million that was hidden in tax havens. That is not a lot, but it is more than the federal government was able to recover for all of Canada.
That brings me to the single tax return. The Liberals are saying that they are against it because Revenu Québec would not be able to fight tax evasion abroad. Now that we know that Revenu Québec is already doing a better job of that than Ottawa is, will the Prime Minister support the single tax return and will he agree to transfer tax information from abroad to Quebec?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-04-14 15:00 [p.5563]
Mr. Speaker, for many months now, the Canada Revenue Agency has been very present and has been meeting the expectations of Canadians, and particularly Quebeckers, in a very direct, measurable and significant way with CERB and assistance for families and youth. We have seen how important it is to have a federal government that is present and engaged to support people in tough times. This is not the time to lose jobs in Quebec or to play sovereignty games. It is the time to work together, as we are doing now.
View Len Webber Profile
CPC (AB)
View Len Webber Profile
2021-04-12 11:06 [p.5379]
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-210, at third reading. For those who may not be familiar with Bill C-2l0, it is a proposal that would allow Canadians to indicate their interest in being an organ and tissue donor through their annual tax forms. Right now the tax forms can only be used for the collection of taxes. The bill would create a legal exemption, just like that made to Elections Canada, to allow for its important question of organ donation to be added to the tax form.
The bill was unanimously supported at both second reading and at committee. The bill was also my bill, Bill C-316, in the last Parliament where it was also unanimously supported, however unfortunately, it died in the Senate. It did get a second decent life in this Parliament when I won the PMB lotto. I was picked as number one, so I resurrected the bill.
It is very timely that we are speaking about the bill today as April is Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month. It is also two weeks away from the tax filing deadline in Canada, so it is ironic to be speaking here today on this. If we have any hope of getting these changes to the tax form implemented in time for the next year, the 2021 tax year, we need to move the bill through both the House and the Senate before the summer. If we miss that deadline, the Canada Revenue Agency will not be able to implement the required changes for yet another year. We just cannot let that happen.
I want to convey my sincere thanks to all parties in the House for showing such strong support and offering genuine co-operation to move this proposal forward. Members' unanimous support and unwavering support at every stage has been heartwarming and shows we really can pull together for Canadians. I specifically want to thank all my colleagues from all parties on the health committee, both currently and in the past when I served on the health committee, who have been vocal, determined and dedicated supporters of the bill.
I also want to thank the government for the allocation of funding in the past fall economic statement to facilitate the implementation of this legislation. Governments do not often commit funding ahead of legislation passing, especially when it is for a private member's bill from an opposition member of Parliament. That funding is very much appreciated and it signifies a shared will to see the bill pass.
I want to bring out the matter that came up at committee. First of all, for this initiative to be most effective, the question on organ and tissue donation needs to be placed on the front page of the tax form. The committee members made this very clear to the CRA. In fact, they specifically voted down the idea of suggesting that the CRA had latitude to move it to some back page in oblivion. Parliament has spoken and it wants this on the front page along with the existing Elections Canada question.
I was pleased that individuals from the CRA have acknowledged that this is a priority of Parliament and committed to putting this on the front page. I implore the folks at the CRA to dig deep and push forward to make sure that we get this done as soon as possible. Their work will have life-changing consequences.
One other aspect I want to spend a few minutes on is something that the bill does not directly address, but is a significant problem here in Canada. This is the reason we have Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month. Research has shown that as many as one in five potential organ and tissue donors have their final wish overturned by their family at the time of death. That is 20% of families overturning the wishes of their deceased loved ones. This decision by their families is robbing those in need of a life-saving transplant of a chance to live. It is robbing their loved one of their final wish. This is unconscionable and it has to change.
We can do better and we must do better, and that is why it is so important to talk to family members about final wishes when it comes to organ and tissue donation.
I have met with many people who have allowed the donation of organs and tissue of their deceased loved ones, and every single one of them without exception has said that it was an essential part of their grief and healing process. The ability to find some good in a time of utter grief is profound and everlasting. They want other families to know that sharing a loved one makes accepting the loss so much easier. Their loss has purpose, and their gift has brought unimaginable relief and joy to another family in need. That is the legacy to leave for a loved one.
We have our own reasons for supporting this legislation. Some of those reasons are closer to home for some members than others. Some members themselves or their family members have medical conditions, which means that they know one day they may require a life-saving transplant. Other members in the House are able to love, laugh and live with loved ones because they received a life-saving transplant and are still here with us today. No matter the reason for supporting this bill, it is very much appreciated.
View Majid Jowhari Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Majid Jowhari Profile
2021-04-12 11:18 [p.5381]
Madam Speaker, first, my thanks to the member for Calgary Confederation for bringing this issue back to the attention of Canadians and the House. We will also be recognizing National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, which will take place from April 18 to 24 this year.
This is a timely discussion, as this upcoming event raises awareness about the critical need for more donors across the country and encourages Canadians to register their decision and talk to their loved ones about organ donation. This topic hits close to home for me as my family and I are all registered organ and tissue donors. I believe more Canadians should at least consider this option as we see rising numbers of people added to wait lists each year.
According to the latest data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register, in 2019 a total of 3,014 organ transplant procedures were performed in Canada, which is an increase of about 42% since 2010. Despite this good news, the national data shows that approximately 4,400 people in Canada are waiting for organ transplants, and more than 1,600 people are added to the list each year. Sadly, due to this, an estimated 250 people die each year while waiting for a transplant. As our population ages, the need for organ and tissue donations keeps increasing.
The Government of Canada recognizes the value of organ and tissue donation and transplantation. Since 2018, the government has supported an initiative called the organ donation and transplantation collaborative, led by Health Canada. The collaborative’s goal is to achieve organ donation improvements that result in better patient outcomes and increase the number and quality of successful transplantations.
The government recognizes that too many Canadians are on organ wait lists. We are committed to improving the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system. Alongside the provinces, territories and key stakeholders, we are establishing leading practices, strengthening professional education and raising awareness to improve organ and tissue donation. The Government of Canada continues to work collaboratively with organizations such as Canadian Blood Services, as well as with the provinces and territories, to encourage public participation and increase organ donation rates across Canada.
Additionally, I am proud to say that in the 2019 budget, the government allocated $36.5 million to develop a pan-Canadian data and performance system for organ donation and transplantation.
I would like to briefly note that my colleague, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, suggested certain amendments at the committee stage to make Bill C-210 easier for the CRA to implement. While these were not adopted, I believe it is important to review and discuss the intentions behind the amendments. I want to emphasize that we all want the objectives of Bill C-210 to become a reality sooner rather than later. At any moment anyone in this room or their loved one could be in need of an organ. I sincerely hope that it will be there when they need it. Therefore, I want to take a moment to address some concerns regarding the implementation of this bill.
The current legislation, which has the CRA directly collecting organ and donor consent on behalf of the provinces and territories, could potentially cause significant roadblocks and time-consuming delays. For the CRA to implement Bill C-210 in time for the tax filing season next year, we need the quick engagement and support of the provinces and territories.
We have spoken in the past about the need for efficient implementation of this bill. The member for Vaughan—Woodbridge proposed an amendment that would have the CRA collect and share the personal information of individuals wishing to become organ and tissue donors with their respective provinces and territories. The provinces and territories, in turn, would obtain consent from Canadians to share this information and store it in a database. Although this amendment was defeated, I still emphasize the critical role of the provinces and territories in the administration of this bill as the maintenance of donor information is legally within their jurisdiction.
Additionally, the legal requirements of donor eligibility and informed consent are very complex and vary greatly by jurisdiction in Canada, so the bill would have different applications for each province and territory. This is why my colleague, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, proposed a separate sheet for organ donation that could be inserted into T1 income tax packages. This sheet was modelled on the insert page for the Ontario Trillium benefit, which is inserted into the tax packages of Ontario residents and then provided directly to the Province of Ontario.
Despite these concerns, I want to reiterate that the CRA will continue to respect the role that the provinces and territories play in organ and tissue donation, ensuring that Canadians' personal information is handled securely. I believe strongly that this collaboration between the CRA and the provincial and territorial governments is essential to delivering real, positive change to Canadians. In fact, I believe that having a pan-Canadian data system in place would support decision-making and improve patient care. It would also help create better records, which could be used for both monitoring and forecasting purposes.
Despite the concerns about the manner of implementation, rest assured that the Government of Canada will fully support Bill C-210. The CRA will continue to work with all parties to make the member for Calgary Confederation's objective a reality, which would make the dream of saving the lives of thousands of Canadians a reality. It is only by working together that we will continue to improve organ and tissue donation progress, along with the transplantation system, and ensure that Canadians have timely and effective access to care.
I encourage all members in the House to vote in support of this bill once again.
View Luc Desilets Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Desilets Profile
2021-04-12 11:26 [p.5382]
Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to all of my colleagues. I am very pleased to see them again after the two weeks that we spent in our ridings.
The debate on Bill C-210 is timely because National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week is set to take place from April 18 to 24. This bill seeks to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act.
First, the bill would authorize the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to enter into agreements with the provinces and territories to collect, via the income tax return, the information required to establish or maintain an organ donor registry. Second, the bill would authorize the CRA to disclose that information to the provinces and territories that have entered into such an agreement.
Just as a reminder, this bill was first introduced in 2016 by our colleague from Calgary Confederation as Bill C-316. Unfortunately, it did not get past first reading in the Senate. This iteration of the bill has a new number, but the contents are the same. As such, the Bloc Québécois's position on this bill remains unchanged. Quebec is just fine with Bill C-210, and the Bloc Québécois fully supports it.
However, as I have already told my House colleagues, it is highly unlikely that Quebec would sign an agreement with the CRA because it already has its own tax return. It is also no secret that the Bloc Québécois is fighting for a single tax return managed solely by Revenu Québec, so why delegate to the CRA a health matter that Quebec is perfectly capable of handling and that is under its exclusive jurisdiction?
Basically, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill because we believe it will benefit the inhabitants of other provinces and territories where the CRA administers the tax system.
We have absolutely no issue with allowing the CRA to collect and share information related to organ and tissue donation. If the Quebec National Assembly were to sign an agreement with the CRA, we would fully respect that decision. Quebec is free to sign or not sign an agreement, and my tone would be completely different if we were to assume otherwise.
According to the most recent data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, in 2019, 3,084 whole organs were transplanted into 3,014 recipients. This includes 1,789 kidneys, 610 livers, 212 hearts, 404 lungs and 68 pancreases. This might seem like an odd list, but it demonstrates the magnitude of the situation. Furthermore, although the total number of transplants has risen quite dramatically compared to ten years ago, I would remind the House that there is still a significant gap between the number of transplants performed and the number of people on waiting lists. In 2019, of the 4,352 people waiting for a transplant, 249 unfortunately died before getting their surgery. This is appalling, and it could be described as a deadly wait. The governments of Canada, Quebec and the other provinces must do better, and everyone needs to do their part.
The COVID-19 pandemic certainly has not made things easier in that regard. In 2020, Transplant Quebec recorded a 20% drop in organ donation and transplantation activity, both in terms of referrals and actual donors and transplant recipients. Quebec is not alone. Other provinces and other countries have seen a similar decline. The pandemic is hitting us hard, but thanks to the tenacity and remarkable adaptability of our medical community in Quebec, things have returned to a semblance of normality in the past few months.
Before I go any further, I would like to take a minute to sincerely thank all the donors who have signed their card and consented to organ or tissue donation. I know that it is not an easy decision for everyone to make.
I also want to take this time to commend the work of doctors who specialize in organ procurement and those who perform the transplants. They do remarkable work. We can never say it enough. Thanks to them, 13,000 people in Quebec and Canada are living with a transplanted organ. It is amazing. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must do more, and Bill C-210 will help us do that.
As I mentioned before, this bill will probably not affect Quebec in any way because Quebeckers have their own tax return, and Quebec could collect the required information for its own registry if it wanted to. So much the better if Quebec does not have to do it and Ottawa manages this matter. However, the last time I checked, health is almost exclusively a provincial jurisdiction. In this great and beautiful Canada, geographical distance is a significant problem for the successful completion of transplants. In light of the fact that a transplant must be completed within 12 hours for a liver and eight hours for a lung, for example, it is obvious that the proper administration of registries is crucial. In my opinion, the provincial centralization of data collection and registry maintenance is a win-win proposition.
That said, I would like to share some more thoughts about this bill. This amendment to the Canada Revenue Agency Act is truly a step in the right direction, but there is no evidence to show that it will have a direct, noticeable impact on the number of deceased donors, so long as we do not do more to promote awareness and education of organ and tissue donation. I remind the House that there is still a significant gap between the number of people who say they are in favour of organ donation and those who explicitly consent to it. I signed these papers when I turned 18 because I had a teacher at the end of high school who told us about the importance of organ donation.
I do want to commend the Government of Nova Scotia, which officially adopted an opt-out system in January. This system is the complete opposite of the opt-in system that exists in the rest of North America. Quebec has been considering this issue for some time now. I would be interested in seeing how this system unfolds with our maritime neighbours. I think it could be very worthwhile. I remind members that there is no data to establish a clear link between the implementation of an opt-in system and an increase in the number of transplants.
That has been demonstrated by Spain, which is a leader in this medical field. The opt-in system expands the pool of deceased organ donors, but that is only useful if we have the appropriate and necessary infrastructure. One of the keys to reducing the gap is to increase investments in medical infrastructure related to organ donation and transplants. There is no point in having more donors if there is a lack of trained staff or if the registry is not administered properly.
Another key is awareness, and I have a special interest in that. In addition to family refusal, there is also a widespread belief that minimal effort will be made to save the lives of those who agree to be organ donors. We need to counter this type of misconception through education and awareness.
I want to take this opportunity to recognize the work of an organization in my riding in Quebec called Chaîne de vie. Chaîne de vie's team of health and education professionals have been visiting high schools across Quebec since 2007 to educate young people between the ages of 15 and 17 about organ and tissue donation. This tremendous work does not just raise awareness among youth. It also encourages family discussion—
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-03-24 18:47 [p.5212]
Mr. Speaker, thank you for reading all of my amendments into the record.
I am very proud to introduce this bill in the House. The bill seeks to establish a single tax return administered by Quebec. I am also very proud that my bill received the support of a majority of the elected members of the House at second reading. The committee study went well. We had some enriching and constructive debates. From my perspective, the concerns about the transition and about jobs have been satisfactorily addressed. The proof is that the NDP decided to support the bill. I also believe that the committee study of this bill confirmed that Ottawa would maintain its own tax policy, and the only change would be having just one tax collector, namely Revenu Québec.
I cannot find the words to describe my shock and surprise at the Conservative members' decisions during the vote in committee. They chose to reject every clause of the bill, even its title. It was unbelievable. Obviously, the Government of Quebec has expressed its disappointment with the Conservatives' about-face in committee. They did not invite any witnesses and seemed to support the bill but then chose to vote against it.
That is why I am calling on the members of the House to vote again on this bill, which seeks to establish a single tax return for Quebeckers. If my colleagues support this bill, I encourage them to vote in favour of the amendments that I am proposing today and to support the implementation of a single tax return administered by Quebec.
I would also like to sincerely thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for supporting the bill in committee. The NDP said that it supported the principle of the bill but expressed concerns about protecting jobs. The debates in committee showed that it is perfectly possible to keep jobs in the regions. Since the federal public service is already understaffed and overly concentrated in Ottawa, the government would be free to reassign some staff to other duties.
The Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, or SFPQ, explained to the committee that it is fairly common to see employees move from one level of government to another and that this can be easily done. Employees would be able to keep their jobs and all of their benefits.
Let me go over what is proposed in the bill. It calls on the government to undertake negotiations with Quebec to enter into an agreement about a single tax return that would be administered by Quebec. The bill states that discussions must be undertaken within 90 days and an agreement reached within a year. That seems good to me. The bill also allows Revenu Québec to access Quebec taxpayers' foreign tax information for consistency. Lastly, the bill calls for special attention to maintaining jobs.
That is exactly what the Government of Quebec and Premier François Legault want. It is exactly what all parties in Quebec's National Assembly want, unanimously. It is exactly what Quebec's business community and unions, such as the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the SFPQ, want. It is exactly what the people of Quebec want. According to the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, eliminating duplication could save $425 million a year.
I was so surprised to see the Conservatives drop this bill during the vote in committee. They used job protection as an excuse to justify their actions. The bill I am introducing calls for protecting those jobs. In 2019, the Conservatives moved a motion in favour of a single tax return in Quebec and it proposed nothing to protect jobs. When the previous Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, said he supported a single tax return administered by Quebec, he never talked about protecting jobs. When this commitment was unanimously adopted at the Conservative convention in Halifax, it was never a question of protecting jobs. When this ended up in the Conservatives' platform during the last election, there was not a single word about job protection.
As soon as the bill was rejected in committee, the Conservative Quebec lieutenant was quick to note that his party was in favour of a single tax return administered by Quebec even though the Conservatives had just rejected this bill. The same goes for the Conservative leader: at his party's convention last Friday, he again made a very clear commitment to support the plan. The Conservatives are in favour of a single tax return provided there is no risk of it coming to fruition, but as soon as it gains traction they flee. I am asking the Conservative members to fix their mistake in committee and support the amendments I am presenting to implement the bill. Let them listen to the commitment made by their leader and their Quebec lieutenant.
Newspaper columnist and former Conservative Party staffer Marc-André Leclerc urged the Conservative leader to support my bill, saying that he “has a duty to prove that his love for the Quebec nation is not a fleeting love”.
Quebec Conservatives are disappointed with the way the Conservatives voted, because the bill has widespread support in Quebec.
I now want to reveal some new information to the House. The work done in committee helped us uncover the real reason that the government and the Liberal members are opposed to this bill. The reasons given in their speeches do not hold water and can be described as ridiculous at best.
From written correspondence provided in response to a question that I had submitted to the Department of Finance, we learned that Ottawa makes a lot of money from administering provincial taxes. Therefore, it is not in Ottawa's interest to let the provinces administer their taxes themselves. Above all, Ottawa does not want to set a precedent or give the provinces any ideas about administering their taxes themselves by following Quebec's example with this proposed single tax return.
In committee, the representatives of the Departments of Finance and National Revenue told us that Ottawa does not charge the provinces anything for collecting their taxes. By the Liberals' telling, the Canada Revenue Agency is practically a charity that is there to serve the provinces.
The only thing is that is not at all how it works. We have learned that the tax collection agreements are stacked heavily in favour of Ottawa. In these agreements, the federal government must remit to the provinces all of the taxes it collects on their behalf, without much of an effort. As soon as the federal government makes a little effort, it keeps the difference for itself. In five years, the federal government pocketed $4.5 billion in provincial taxes that it kept from the provinces. That is almost $1 billion a year. That is a tidy sum, and is certainly enough to convince the Liberals to oppose the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous request. It is best not to give the other provinces any ideas, for fear that Ottawa would lose out on $1 billion of the provinces' money a year. That may also have been the reason the Conservatives decided to fight the bill.
In presenting my amendments to the House, I encourage all members of Parliament to support a request from the Quebec National Assembly and its premier. I urge the Conservatives to change their minds. Scoring a goal is all well and good, but not when it is in your own net or in Quebec's. I urge the New Democrats to be consistent and show solidarity with Quebec's unanimous demand. It is possible to save the jobs. I urge the Liberals to do this for Quebec and work to make the government more efficient. By this, I mean that we need to eliminate duplication, since the work does not need to be done twice.
The government has the means to protect the jobs in the regions, as long as the will is there. The federal public service is understaffed and is far too centralized in Ottawa. I am calling on the Liberal members and all members of the House not to be swayed by the argument that Ottawa makes $1 billion a year on the backs of the provinces and that things need to stay the way they are. This is not right, and I would even say it is cheap.
I would also remind the House that, after years of negotiation, Quebec City managed to come to an agreement with Ottawa regarding the collection of sales tax from businesses. Rather than Ottawa collecting the GST and Quebec collecting the QST, Revenu Québec collects both the GST and the QST at the same time. This means far less paperwork for businesses and generates significant savings. Revenu Québec is present in every region of Quebec, and this system works well. It has been successful, and no one complains about it.
Could we do the same thing with income tax? That is simply what this bill proposes, and I am confident that it will pass in the House.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2021-03-24 19:05 [p.5215]
Mr. Speaker, for almost three years now, our party has been actively fighting for a single tax return for Quebec. Our position goes back a long time.
For a political party like ours, which respects provincial jurisdiction, listening to the provinces and collaborating with them is crucial. After all, we are the party that gave Quebec its UNESCO seat, that recognized the Quebec nation and that fixed the fiscal imbalance. We are the party that fought for the Meech Lake accord. In short, the Conservative Party has an excellent record when it comes to respecting the provinces and their jurisdiction.
The provincial government and Quebeckers themselves responded very positively to the idea of a single tax return, which our party advanced in 2018. Currently, Quebec is the only province with two tax returns, one for Ottawa and the other for Quebec. This situation dates back to the Second World War. In 1941, the provinces agreed to temporarily hand their power to tax personal and corporate income over to the federal government. That situation ended up being permanent, not temporary.
However, in 1954, the Government of Quebec created its own personal income tax and started administering its own income tax system. The ability to administer its own system is critical to Quebec's autonomy.
Just as Quebec marked Canadian history in 1954, we have the possibility in the House of Commons to simplify life for Quebeckers and continue the march toward a single tax return for Quebec, administered by Quebec. It is an idea we have been presenting for nearly three years now. At first Bill C-227 provided its sponsor the opportunity to take a positive step in that direction and bring us together around his bill, but now it is a different story.
First, the deadlines set out in the bill are unrealistic. Did it ever occur to the member for Joliette that the party currently in power is the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that is hostile to provincial demands?
As currently worded, the bill calls on the federal Minister of Finance to enter into discussions with the Government of Quebec within 90 days of the passage of the bill. What is more, the bill recommends discussions on an agreement within a year. Do they honestly believe that the Liberal Party of Canada will negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec to allow it to have a single tax return?
It would have been wiser for the Bloc Québécois to wait for a Conservative government to be elected before initiating such discussions, since the Conservatives are much more in tune with the needs of the provinces. There is no doubt that an agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Quebec would have been much more beneficial for la belle province than one negotiated by a Liberal government.
In fact, recent events show that the Liberal government is not very responsive to Quebec's demands. Quebec is calling for an increase in health transfers with no strings attached. The federal government responded by seeking to impose Canada-wide standards in Quebec's long-term care facilities. That shows a complete lack of trust in Quebec.
Fortunately, the Conservatives not only want to increase health transfers in a stable, predictable way with no strings attached, but we also want to take action for Quebec in other areas, namely by applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses, such as banks, and by giving Quebec more authority over immigration.
Second, rather than sticking to one bill to obtain a single tax return for Quebec, the member for Joliette chose to use this opportunity to promote a completely different agenda. That should not have happened.
Nowhere in its unanimous motion to support the creation of a single tax return did the Quebec National Assembly request negotiating powers with tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions in order to amend the tax treaties and agreements regarding income tax and Canada's tax information exchange agreements. That is a whole other debate that is hindering the passage of the bill.
Although we support Quebec's autonomist vision, foreign relations are definitely a federal jurisdiction. Why, then, include this in the bill?
Is the Bloc Québécois really set on having a single tax return? Did it not know that including this clause would derail the debate? The Bloc Québécois's position on this issue is unfortunate, but not surprising.
The Bloc Québécois is using this clause to have it both ways. The single tax return is in itself a huge win for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois always has to push the envelope.
Third, the bill provides no guarantee that Canadian public service jobs will be maintained following this change. The people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord know me. I have always said that the single tax return should be brought in without causing any job losses. I can say that this bill does not provide any guarantees about that.
The public service has quality, well-paid jobs in the regions. The Conservative Party has always wanted the regions, and not just Montreal, to develop and have their fair share of the pie. It is in the same spirit that the provincial government has a plan to move public service jobs to the regions.
Unfortunately, if our Bloc Québécois colleagues had paid attention to what was said by the stakeholders who appeared before the committee, including the union representing the workers, they would know that the bill, in its present form, does nothing at all to protect jobs.
This bill jeopardizes an important sector for regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the Mauricie. We are in the midst of a pandemic; now is not the time to jeopardize jobs. Now is the time to take action for our families, our workers and Quebec.
If the purpose of Bill C-224, in its present form, was to encourage the creation of a single tax return, then it misses the mark. The Bloc Québécois should leave managing to managers and let the Conservatives finish what they started with respect to the single tax return. In other words, the Bloc should let the Conservatives introduce, negotiate and implement the single tax return. The Bloc Québécois's bill is a very good illustration of the expression “give someone an inch and they will take a mile”.
Rather than proposing effective solutions for Quebeckers to make their lives easier, the Bloc Québécois's bill just stirs up quarrels between Ottawa and Quebec. The Conservative Party will continue to push for a pragmatic and effective solution to give Quebeckers the single tax return they deserve, while respecting workers and the regions.
I will close by saying that the Conservative Party will not need a private member's bill to take action. We have every intention of forming the next government, of picking up the phone to call the Government of Quebec and of negotiating and creating a single tax return for Quebeckers.
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: 1 - 60 of 106 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data