Bill C-17 (Historical)

An Act respecting additional COVID-19 measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to revise the eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy in order to support those employers hardest hit by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Part 2 enacts the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), which addresses the need for flexibility in relation to certain time limits and other periods that are established by or under Acts of Parliament and that are difficult or impossible to meet as a result of the exceptional circumstances produced by COVID-19. In particular, the enactment
(a) suspends, for a maximum of six months, certain time limits in relation to proceedings before courts;
(b) temporarily enables ministers to suspend or extend time limits and to extend other periods in relation to specified Acts and regulations for a maximum of six months; and
(c) provides for the transparent exercise of the powers it confers and for Parliamentary oversight over the exercise of those powers.
Part 3 amends the Income Tax Act to authorize the use by officials, or disclosure to Government of Canada officials, of taxpayer information solely for the purpose of a one-time payment to persons with disabilities for reasons related to COVID-19. It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to authorize the disclosure of information for the purpose of that one-time payment.
Part 4 amends the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act to, among other things, enhance the administration and enforcement of the Act and allow a review of decisions made under the Act. It also provides that a worker is not eligible for an income support payment if they do not return to work when it is reasonable to do so or decline a reasonable job offer.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It is to Ms. Cobden from the Canadian Steel Producers Association.

Ms. Cobden, I know you mentioned dumping practices, and you were worried about that. My understanding is that one of our committees—I think the justice committee—was considering Bill C-17. There was a provision around dumping practices there. Was your association consulted, and if you were, what was the outcome?

[Peter Glossop, Partner, Competition, Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt LLP]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, for inviting me to speak today. My comments are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of my firm or clients.

I've been advising clients on the Investment Canada Act for over 30 years. During that time, I've seen the structure of the act evolve. In my early years of practice, the review thresholds were extremely low. Too many foreign investments were reviewed. The act didn't address state-owned investors or national security concerns. In contrast, today the act permits review only of significant investments and of all investments that could injure national security.

Because of COVID-19, administration of the act needs some temporary fine-tuning, but no significant changes.

I support careful scrutiny of state-owned investment and the application of national security considerations to all investments, as set out in the ministerial policy statement of April 18. I do not support lower review thresholds or a moratorium on state-owned investments from authoritarian countries, along the lines of the June 1 motion.

Lowering the thresholds runs counter to the trend in Canada's trade agreements for the last 30 years. If we adopt this change, Canada will send a strong signal that it is not open to foreign investment. It would reduce the options for Canadian business owners at a time of great financial distress, and it would call into question Canada's adherence to its international obligations.

Equally concerning is the proposed moratorium on acquisitions by state-owned enterprises, or SOEs, from authoritarian countries. How would “authoritarian” be defined? Not all SOEs are just government proxies. Some SOEs are legitimate investors, with corporate governance and a commercial orientation. Some SOEs are listed on a stock exchange and are accountable to their public shareholders.

The act already contains tools to carefully assess SOE investments on a case-by-case basis. All SOE investments are subject to review at a much lower threshold, based on book value. More of them tend to be captured relative to private sector investments. The definition of SOE captures a wide range of state-owned and state-influenced investors. The minister has the power to determine who is an SOE and whether an acquisition of control by an SOE has occurred. In a reviewable investment, an SOE must satisfy the normal net benefit to Canada criteria. The SOE investor also must satisfy additional criteria concerning good corporate governance and adherence to free market principles.

Problematic SOE investment from authoritarian countries can also be reviewed for national security reasons. Investments of any size can be reviewed on these grounds. The timelines in the act allow for a lengthy, careful review for national security. If enacted, Bill C-17 would enable the minister to extend these timelines further. Security review applies even when the investor does not acquire a complete Canadian business, and there are guidelines that list a full range of factors to be considered in the assessment. Using these powers, the government can block an investment, order a divestiture or allow it to proceed conditionally.

In conclusion, the review thresholds for private sector and SOE investments are set at appropriate levels. The existing review process for SOE investments is sufficiently thorough, and there is a robust national security review process.

Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Accepting that there is massive confusion and contradictory information, if the government proceeds with part 4 of Bill C-17, will it also be charging Parliamentary Secretary Adam Vaughan for being an accessory to fraud, or would there be another set of rules for the government versus the public?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll be sharing time with MP MacGregor.

There is massive confusion in the public about the eligibility rules for CERB. In the rules on the government's website, it says “are or expect to be without employment income or self-employment income for at least 14 consecutive days in the initial four-week period”, yet Parliamentary Secretary Adam Vaughan tweeted “apply.... you don't need to prove 14 days without any income.”

For those who followed Adam Vaughan's advice, can the Prime Minister confirm that they will not be penalized and criminalized under Bill C-17?

Supplementary Estimates (A)

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Chair, last week the government introduced Bill C-17, which included assistance for people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, this assistance required that recipients be entitled to the disability tax credit. However, one must pay taxes to be entitled to the tax credit. This automatically excluded the vast majority, or 60% of people living with a disability in Canada. That is completely unacceptable to the NDP.

Will the government take action to help people with disabilities, that is to say all people living with disabilities, and not just a minority?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Don't set aside the criminalization, because Bill C-17 is before us, and if that goes through, criminalization may well take place. That's why I'm asking that question.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

Madam Chair, Krystal is a community worker in Winnipeg. She has been working from home since late March, taking care of her child, who is out of school, and caring for her father, who is living with her and vulnerable to COVID-19. Her employer called her up recently and asked her to physically return to work or to take a leave.

As a parent and a care provider to a vulnerable person, she's not comfortable with physically returning to work. Service Canada won't give Krystal a straight answer as to whether going on leave and collecting CERB would count as refusing “a reasonable job offer.” With Bill C-17 looming in the background, Krystal is worried about jail time and fines if she does right by her child and her father by applying for CERB.

Can Krystal reasonably refuse to go back to work and collect CERB, or will she be considered a fraudster? That's my question for the minister that is specific to Krystal's case.

As well, what is the minister doing to provide clear direction to Canadians and to Service Canada agents so that people can get a clear answer before making their decision about returning to work?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like nothing better than to explain it to him, but I must remind him that he is the leader of the party in power, the party that is supposed to govern the country. So I do not know why he is asking me that.

My party proposed that we debate this today but we did not get an answer. Meanwhile, court time limits are running out and people are losing rights.

I am thinking of families, child support, child custody, labour law disputes in Federal Court, marine transportation, interprovincial transportation, aviation, banks, and those with grievances waiting for a Federal Court ruling.

The whole system, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, everything is on hold because nobody in the government wants to do their job.

We want to discuss Bill C-17. When can we talk about it?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, what a coincidence, because I beseech my colleague opposite to debate it with us. That is what we are asking.

Last week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Liberal government to debate Bill C-17 today. He did not get an answer. It does not seem to matter.

Richard Wagner, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is hardly a dimwit or greenhorn, told us that the justice system needs to be modernized. As recently as this past Saturday in La Presse, Justice Wagner said that it is essential that the Criminal Code be amended to address the backlog of court proceedings.

When will the Liberal government opposite pull up its socks, do its job, govern the federation, sit down with the opposition and discuss the vital matters in Bill C-17?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, last week, the government introduced Bill C-17 and the Minister of Justice sent us briefing notes in which he said that it was important to suspend a number of time limits and to extend others, and that the failure to do so could have important repercussions on Canadians, their families, their situations, their finances and their ability to exercise their rights. We in the Bloc Québécois agree with that.

When are we going to talk about it?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here.

I wanted to get back to the issue that arose in the House of Commons today. Bill C-17 was due to come forward. It was due to handle the legislation necessary to get the support out to disabled people, but as well, there were going to be some changes to the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, especially to deal with irregularly employed people. Would that have reflected on the benefits and the support that would have been available to fishers or to the industry, the sector?

An Act Respecting Additional COVID-19 Measures

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That Bill C-17, an act respecting additional COVID-19 measures, be divided into two bills; that Bill C-17 be entitled “An Act respecting the disclosure of information for the purpose of a one-time permit to persons with disabilities” and consists of part 3 of the said bill and that Bill C-18 be entitled “An Act respecting additional COVID-19 measures” and consists of all the remaining portions of the said bill; and that Bill C-17 be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at second reading later this day; (b) when the House begins debate on the motion for second reading of the bill, one member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may speak to the said motion for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member; and, at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred; and (c) if the bill is adopted at second reading, it shall be referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage on division, and deemed read a third time and passed on division; Bill C-18 shall be ordered for consideration at second reading at the next sitting of the House; and for the purposes of printing Bills C-17 and C-18, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections in those bills as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, An Act respecting additional COVID-19 measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I think the honourable member can explain to his constituents that the forming of regulations through order in council is actually the process prescribed in law in Canada under section 117.15 of the Criminal Code.

I would also invite the member to advise his constituents that way back in 1991, when there were some Conservatives who called themselves “Progressive”, the Mulroney government brought forward, in Bill C-17, the authority under that section for an order in council to prescribe specific makes, models and variants of military firearms as prohibited or restricted.

The Harper government used the same tool—