Bill C-15 (Historical)

Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act

An Act respecting Canada emergency student benefits (coronavirus disease 2019)

This enactment authorizes the payment of Canada emergency student benefits to students who lost work and income opportunities for reasons related to the coronavirus disease 2019.

Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. leader for sharing his time with me today.

Before I begin, I want to say hello to the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and thank them for the remarkable resilience they have shown during this crisis. The situation is relatively stable for the time being in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé thanks to their compliance with the measures put in place by various public health authorities.

As the Bloc Québécois youth critic, I am pleased to be here today to debate this bill bringing in support measures for students. Not wanting to leave students behind, the Bloc Québécois has been urging the government to act. Our demands have been heard.

The government listened to us and brought in the Canada emergency student benefit to provide support to students and recent graduates who are not eligible for the Canada emergency response benefit or employment insurance and are unable to work because of COVID-19.

It is a benefit of $1,250 per month for eligible students or a benefit of $1,750 for those who care for a person with a disability. Let me be clear: that is very good news for young people who are unable to go back to their regular summer job for various reasons. Perhaps they are sick, perhaps they have to care for someone who is sick, or perhaps the business they worked for last year cannot reopen. Regardless of the reason, this emergency benefit is welcome.

It is welcome as long as it is seen for what it is: an emergency benefit. Having been a student myself not that long ago, I can only assume that students will be the first to want to lend a hand as soon as the situation allows them to do so. They are already doing just that.

I was talking about this yesterday with the presidents of the Quebec Student Union and the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec. They told me that many of their members had already sent out hundreds of resumés to work for Quebec's long-term care centres, farms, and businesses that offer essential services.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the contribution young people make to our society. We know that most of them will not apply for the benefit until they have tried to find a job.

People have criticized this measure recently. Businesses in Quebec are concerned that students might not make much of an effort to find work before collecting a cheque from Ottawa.

We know that the regular Canada emergency response benefit has, in effect, created two classes of citizens, several even, because it has different eligibility criteria, which is why there is now a benefit specifically for students.

The thing is, students are citizens like everyone else. They have bills to pay too. A student who moves from Gaspé to attend the Université du Québec à Montréal ends up spending about $3,600 in the first month and about $1,200 a month thereafter for fixed costs such as rent, food, transportation, Internet and phone. Costs can be even higher for students in other Canadian cities.

Of course, some of them get help from other people, such as family members, but many of them need us. They need help from the government.

Earlier the minister spoke about Felix. I want to talk about Thomas. Thomas called my office the other day. Because of his course load, he is unable to work during the school year. Yesterday he wrote his last exam of the semester, but even though that stressful experience is over, his anxiety level has only increased instead of decreasing.

He knows that the day after tomorrow, he will have to pay his rent, phone and Internet, but he does not know how he will manage. He was supposed to start an internship on Monday, but that has been cancelled because of the crisis. We all know that Thomas is not the only one in this situation. Felix is not the only one either. Thousands of students across Quebec and Canada are in the same situation.

For many students, summer is a time to earn money for the upcoming school year. However, it is not just about money. Sure, these summer jobs are about earning income, but they are also about gaining experience. For others, it may simply be an educational requirement. This crisis is also an extraordinary situation for students.

I come back to these people who over the past few days have expressed their dissatisfaction with the government's benefit for students. The main argument for some is this myth that students in Quebec and Canada are lazy.

To bust that myth and change what might be perceived as a disincentive to work, the Bloc Québécois wanted to propose a compromise. That compromise would be good for everyone, but most of all it would increase the purchasing power of students and allow the government to save the public purse a lot of money.

We proposed a change that would let young people keep more of their pay before being penalized. We made this proposal because we believe that the CESB is somewhat unfair. It is unfair to students who will make the effort to find a job but will not receive the benefit if they make more than $1,000, the ineligibility threshold.

We know that the CERB was created in the context of a lockdown. The student benefit will be introduced in an entirely different context, at a time when we presume we will be emerging from that lockdown. This is a fundamental change in the measure's implementation in that many businesses will be reopening their doors to the extent possible, with some opening in a more restricted manner. I am thinking of restaurant owners who decide, for example, to open just in the evenings on weekends instead of at lunch and dinner every day. This means that there will be many strictly part-time jobs. Neither employers nor employees will benefit when a student has to refuse working a few extra hours because they are afraid of losing access to the benefit or, as my colleague said, losing the entire $1,250. We simply find it unfair that those who want to work should be penalized.

The crisis is affecting the health of our economy in particular, and several sectors, including the agricultural sector, are experiencing an urgent labour shortage. In my area, many farmers are having to seek additional help because they will not be able to count on temporary foreign workers this summer, for reasons we can all guess.

We believe that students' courage in the face of a crisis is not the issue. The Canada emergency benefit is necessary to support students, but it could certainly use some improvement. I salute the negotiations that took place over the past few hours to address our demands in order to pass this bill, namely for the government to implement financial incentives and support measures for students and young people for the various jobs available, including jobs in the agriculture and agri-food sector, to ensure the economic stability of the regions and maintain food production during the crisis.

What we all want is for the government to ensure that the financial measures it is putting in place are offered in a manner that fulfills their primary objectives while encouraging employment in all circumstances.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The co-operation among all the political parties in the House has paid off. The bill will help students. It has been a long time since I was a student. There was a recession in 1981 when I graduated from the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, where I learned French. Like many students and new graduates, I had to take lower-paying jobs that were not necessarily related to my career. Later on, everything went back to normal.

Does my colleague think that this situation could serve as an opportunity?

I know that people's lives are being disrupted, but does she see any opportunities for the young people who are living through this situation?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I believe that our job as parliamentarians is to improve the various programs that are being implemented. We know that months of preparation did not go into this program before it was implemented. The benefit was implemented as an emergency measure. Everything can be improved and it is our job to do just that.

Like my colleagues, I get questions every day from my constituents who are concerned and who are falling through the cracks in the various programs. We are here to improve these programs, and that is what we did with the Canada emergency student benefit. I think that students were somewhat overlooked in this crisis.

We are very pleased to see that we can work together to offer students financial support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and the Bloc Québécois for the proposal. I completely agree that it is good for students to be allowed to work part time instead of being unemployed.

How can we, as members of Parliament, show our support in the unanimous consent motions?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understood the member's question and whether she is wondering if we can agree with the motion passed earlier in the House.

I think it is up to all opposition parties to work with the government to improve the Canada emergency student benefit. It will be implemented rather quickly.

There were a number of concerns from student associations in Quebec, which were asking when the benefit would come and whether the adoption of the bill would delay the money. The CERB arrived rather quickly, so I hope things will go just as smoothly with the CESB.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise twice in a row.

I just want to say how grateful I am. Indeed, I had not realized that this had been added to the motion that we passed.

I realize it now, and I am very pleased with my colleague's response.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a small clarification

After the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, the member for Beloeil—Chambly asked a question. It was then that there was confirmation that our proposal would be implemented.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this crisis, New Democrats have said there are three things that Canadians need. They need to have the money to be able to pay their bills, the confidence that they will have a job to return to and a safe place to live. Throughout this crisis, we have seen that the government has acted too slowly and, in many cases, with too little to help Canadians get through this crisis.

We have said from the beginning that the simplest and most effective way to ensure that no one is missed or left behind is to send support directly to all Canadians. Absent that, we have said that if the government is not willing to have a universal basic income for Canadians during this crisis, then at least make the CERB universal. Make the CERB universal so that anyone who needs help right now can access that help.

Every step of the way, instead of a simple solution that prioritizes making sure Canadians who need help can get it, the Liberals have preferred a complicated approach, one where they are constantly changing and upgrading it. Contrary to the Deputy Prime Minister, I do not believe that is a strength when there is a clear solution that they have completely avoided. It would have been a strength if we had a universal program and then had to modify it to expand to other things not expected in terms of businesses and other groups. If there is an easy solution to provide help to all Canadians and the Liberals are ignoring that option, only to have to return to Parliament to update and continually change it because we push them to close the gaps, that is not something they should be proud of.

In fact, what the government is doing is making a choice. The government is choosing to deny help to those who need it most. It is choosing to deny help to those desperately in need. The Liberals' position is this. They would rather deny help to those who need it most than risk people getting more help than they need. That is really the choice they are making. They are so afraid there may be some people who do not need help and might end up getting it, that they are willing to risk people in desperate need falling through the cracks. That is a choice they are making.

However, New Democrats have a solution to that. We can easily tax back those who get extra help and do not need it. We have a year until the next tax season. In that time, I am confident that, if it were a priority of the government to ensure Canadians got the help they needed, those who received extra help could be taxed back very easily. We are in a crisis. We are in a pandemic. The priority should not be excluding or denying people in need and then trying to catch up and find solutions. The priority should be that they do not want people falling through the cracks and they will tax back those who did not need the help. That should be the solution. This is not the time to deny help; this is the time to deliver help as rapidly as possible to everyone in need.

This government is making a choice. It is a choice. It is choosing to leave some people behind, to deny help to people desperately in need. It would rather deny help to those who need it most than risk people getting help they do not need.

There is a simple solution. Give everyone the help they need now and if someone does not need the assistance, it can be taxed back.

This is not the time to deny help to people. It is the time to help people as quickly as possible.

Now I want to talk about the approach to students. We have said from the beginning that there were too many people missed by the CERB. Notably, we mentioned students as well as owner-operators, seniors and people living with disabilities, but let us focus on students.

It is clear from the approach that the Liberal government is taking that the Liberals believe that there are some students who are deserving of help and there are others who are not. The Liberals are basing their assumptions on a very privileged view of the world. In his announcement about students, the Prime Minister actually said to the public, when referencing this aid, that maybe students are going to have to go to mom and dad and ask for help and it is going to be harder to do that these days. What the Prime Minister did not really reflect on is that many students are moms and dads.

In their initial proposition, until we pushed them, the Liberals thought they were justified to give students with children and students living with disabilities less help. They thought it was okay to cut the help that went to moms who decided to go back to school to get an education, and that they somehow deserved less help. The government members thought it was okay to tell students living with disabilities, who already face challenges getting jobs, that they deserve less help, as if students living with disabilities have to pay less for rent or less for groceries; as if moms who go back to school have some sort of discount on their groceries or their bills. In case the government does not know this, they do not have a discount. In fact, it might be more costly and more difficult for them. It seems like the government wanted to penalize people for going to school; that it wanted to penalize students living with disabilities and parents who went on to get an education.

I want to give a clear example of what this means for a student, which provides a picture of what this decision meant. Miranda is from Victoria. She is a single mom who was in full-time studies last year. She did not make the $5,000 cut-off to qualify for the CERB. She is now unemployed because she has an eight-year-old daughter and, as a result of COVID-19, has no child care. She has lost her child care. She does not qualify for the CERB. She is wondering how she is going to pay for the rent, food and bills. The government thinks that Miranda deserves less simply because she went to school.

What is the government's response to someone like Miranda? The Liberals initially thought that she did not need help or she did not deserve as much help or that since she was struggling before the pandemic, it was okay that she was struggling. They thought that it was okay that things were tough for her because she was used to it. That logic is simply inexcusable and it is wrong.

What is the government's general response to the students it has left behind? It says they do not need help, that they do not deserve as much help as someone who was working, that they were struggling before the pandemic and they should get used to it. That is inexcusable. It makes no sense.

I just cannot understand why the government thought it was okay to initially leave students with disabilities behind, and that it was okay to offer an arbitrary sum of money and say that it would give these students living with disabilities an arbitrary sum less than anyone else. That, to me, speaks to a callousness around its decision-making when it comes to students and perhaps a privileged world view of what it means to be a student.

When it comes to students living with disabilities, the fact that they were particularly given less funding as well really belies the reality. These are students who probably have to pay far more in costs, such as the cost of transportation for someone living with a disability and health care that is not covered. Their costs are probably higher, not lower.

We know that people living with disabilities face higher rates of unemployment, so it is probably more likely that someone with a disability is not likely to have had a job to qualify for the CERB. As students are trying to improve their lot in life, why would the government discriminate against them in that way?

However, what makes all of this even more hurtful, even more callous, is when we contrast the government's approach to students like Miranda, students living with disabilities, with its approach to wealthy, powerful businesses. Let us contrast the two. The government is not worried about the billions of dollars that we, as a country, we as people, are losing to those companies that choose to cheat our system by using tax havens. The government is not worried about that; it is okay, but Miranda deserves $250 less. A student living with a disability deserves $250 less because this is a student living with a disability. However, a company like Loblaws can use, legally, a tax haven and avoid paying $400 million in taxes, approximately.

It is unreal that the government thinks it is okay to allow a company like Loblaws to use offshore tax havens. Again, it is legal. That is the problem here. That company is legally allowed to do that and not contribute $400 million to our country to help with services and programs, but Miranda deserves $250 less. That is a choice. That is a decision that the government is making. That is not happenstance. It is not a coincidence, but a thoughtful choice that the government is making, and it is wrong.

This government is so worried about people like Miranda getting more money than they deserve that it is willing to give them $250 less per month. Meanwhile, it cannot be bothered to go after the billions of dollars that are lost every year when big corporations cheat the system by using tax havens. It is absolutely crazy. I am sorry, but it is true.

We have asked the government to commit to something really simple, and we have seen other countries do this. Denmark, France and Poland have all committed to the very same thing we are asking this government to do.

If a company in Canada thinks it is okay to cheat our tax system and put its money in an offshore tax haven, to purposefully avoid contributing to our society, contributing to the social programs in our country and paying its fair share, then that company does not deserve public help. We have asked the government to commit to that. Other countries have committed to it clearly. The Canadian government has not. The Prime Minister has not committed to this. It is a simple solution.

If a company thinks it is above contributing its fair share, or if a company thinks it is going to save billions or hundreds of millions of dollars and it is not going to contribute to the public good, then that company does not deserve the public good to help it out when times are tough, yet the government has not committed to that. To date, the government has not committed to doing this.

Again, I asked the Prime Minister earlier today. I asked the government today. There are ministers here. Will they commit to ensuring that a company in Canada that uses offshore tax havens will not get public funding and will not be bailed out during this time? I ask them to commit to that. It is a simple solution. Denmark, France and other countries are doing the same thing. Even Poland is doing this. Why will this country not do it? Why will this government not do it, when there are so many examples of other countries doing it? It is a clear solution. There are billions of dollars that we can recover. I am asking the government to do it.

More than I do, Canadians want the government to do this. People want to know that they are getting a fair share. It does not make sense that the government is going to deny a universal CERB at the same time that there are companies that are stealing, effectively, billions of dollars out of our coffers to contribute to our social good. That does not make any sense. It is beyond time that the Liberal government committed to closing these tax loopholes to ensure that we have the revenue that we can invest in Canadians and to ensure that people are lifted up in this time.

The government should not worry about nickel-and-diming students when wealthy corporations like Loblaws can get away with not paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Single parents like Miranda are not the problem. Company owners like Galen Weston are the problem, and it is not his fault; it is the government's fault that it is allowing offshore tax havens to exist.

I want to talk about another issue that is hurting Canadians and that people are desperately worried about. That is rent. Rent is due again on the first of the month, and that is going to be this Friday. There are far too many Canadians who do not know how they are going to pay their rent. We have urged the government to use the powers and jurisdiction that we have at the federal level over banks to ensure that there is a pause on mortgage, not a deferral. People who use a deferral end up having to pay far more in the long run. It would cost them far more. We are asking the government to use the powers we have expressly in the Constitution, section 91, and in the Bank Act to put a pause on mortgages, and then to negotiate with provinces to ensure there is a pause on rent. We know that mortgage and rent are connected. If we negotiate that pause, we can ensure that people are going to be able to stay in their homes.

We have also heard from small business owners who have said that one of their biggest concerns, one of their biggest fixed costs, is commercial rent. We were pleased that, after a lot of pressure and great work from a lot of activists across the country, small business owners and New Democrats, the government announced some help and relief for rent, when it comes to commercial properties. That is a good thing, but if the government has been able, working with the provinces, to figure out a way to put in place relief on commercial rent, I implore the government that people need that help as well. In the same way it was able to figure out how to work with the provinces to bring in place relief for small businesses, which is much needed, I ask the government to do the same for people who are worried about paying their rent.

There is no reason why we cannot extend that same relief and support to people. If these people cannot find a place to live, we are not just going to have a problem with homelessness or a lack of housing; we are also going to have a public health emergency when people who have been told they need to stay at home are no longer able to, and that would put more risk of infection and spreading the disease into our health care system.

The Prime Minister does not need to wait for a press conference. The Prime Minister can announce today that there will be relief for Canadians who need help when it comes to their rent, and that Canadians who need help with their mortgage can count on help. That can be announced today.

In closing, I want to point out that in every moment of this crisis, the Liberal government's first impulse or first reaction was to leave people behind. The Liberals left workers out of EI, and we pushed them to fix it. They left out workers in general who were not covered by EI. We pushed them, and they brought into place the CERB. They left small businesses behind, and we pushed them to fix that as well. Now they wanted to leave students behind. We pushed them, and they have come some of the way, but we are going to keep pushing them to make sure they go all the way.

The right thing to do now is help people out, not complicate things with different programs that have different criteria and different levels of support. What people need right now is to know that if they need help, they can apply for it and get it. The best way to help people right now is to make it easy to get the help they need, to make it quick and accessible.

I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House call on the government to make the Canada emergency response benefit a universal benefit, such that students, seniors and anyone in need can apply for and receive $2,000 a month to help them through these difficult times.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Burnaby South have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to put it on the record, the Green Party would have been very happy to give unanimous consent, had there been enough others to do so. The Green Party has been calling for a guaranteed livable income for two decades now, and we will continue to do so.

I would like to put it to the hon. member that I agree with the proposition that we should not be providing COVID relief to corporations that hide their money in offshore accounts, but I can see the issue with saying that their workers cannot get the 75% wage benefit.

I note that some NGOs that work in this area, Tax Fairness for example, are saying that there are other things that could be targeted besides all COVID relief programs. I suggest, for instance, that corporate stock bailouts not be allowed and that executive bonuses, golden parachutes and shareholder dividends be held off for a full year.

For any corporation that hides its money offshore but also receives COVID benefits, we could also look at an excess profits tax to recoup those benefits. Although I agree totally, on principle, that companies that hide their money offshore and evade taxes should not be able to benefit from COVID-19 relief measures, the problem is that their workers should.

I would ask the hon. member what he would propose and whether we can find another solution.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could absolutely solve this problem.

First, if a company right now is registered in an offshore tax haven and wants government support, it can commit to removing its money from that offshore tax haven and putting it back into the public. It can commit to contributing its fair share. With that ironclad commitment, it can receive support.

In addition, we need to make sure that any support we deliver is guaranteed to go to workers. We do not want a situation where a company receives a blank cheque. We have seen the Conservatives do that in the past, during the 2007-08 crisis, when companies received billions of dollars of public money, only to shut down their factories and move them to other jurisdictions while jobs are lost in Canada.

There should never be, in any sector, a blank cheque given to any corporation. Corporations should be required to have ironclad agreements that the support will go directly to maintaining or creating jobs, hiring people in the country where that support is given.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the hon. member, my leader, mentioned this. I know that this happened in my riding. Caterpillar received a significant amount of money from the federal government several years ago. Then it picked up and left, and there were no jobs left in my community under that company, so I am really glad that this was raised.

One of the key things that I am grateful the federal government has done is that it waived interest fees for students for six months. However, New Democrats have been pushing and calling for that to be a permanent move. How important would it be for the government to do that, to take that initiative, that bold step? How important would that be for students?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should start thinking about making many of the programs we are contemplating now as things to move forward with in a future that is better than the past. We do not want to go back to normal; we want to go forward to something better, a system and social programs that allow us to take better care of each another, and in that, the idea of waiving student interest is something we should absolutely do. There is no reason that the federal government should be profiting off the backs of students who are in debt. Loans should be interest-free and should continue that way. That is something New Democrats believe in and that we should do on a go-forward basis as policy.