Bill C-20 (Historical)

An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to revise the eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) in order to support those employers hardest hit by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It also extends the CEWS to November 21, 2020, with the ability to extend the CEWS by regulation to no later than December 31, 2020, and provides a revised calculation of the CEWS for the fifth and subsequent qualifying periods. Finally, it makes amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that the CEWS operates effectively.
Part 2 amends the Pension Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act and the Veterans Well-being Act to authorize the disclosure of information for the purpose of the administration of a program to provide a one-time payment to persons with disabilities for reasons related to COVID-19. It also 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 that one-time payment. Finally, it provides that any amount payable in relation to the administration of the program to provide that one-time payment is to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Part 3 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.

Further COVID-19 Measures Act

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that the first time the Liberals proposed a single payment to persons with disabilities, we Conservatives offered to recall Parliament to debate and perhaps improve that initial legislation. The Liberals chose to play political games, and weeks later, after an unnecessary delay, we are back. Parliament is recalled, and we are debating an improved piece of legislation. However, this unnecessary and, for many in the community, painful delay stands in stark contrast to the turning on a dime and the awarding of almost a billion dollars to a charity, which looks very much, to many Canadians, like political payback. It is not just WE to me, but WE to me, to him, the Prime Minister, and his family.

This improved piece of legislation, overdue, is still very complex and will be seen as a challenge to many persons with disabilities in making their applications. What is the minister going to do to ensure timely disbursement of these payments?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that when given the chance to separate just the disability component—because quite frankly I thought we were all in agreement about it last time—certain parties did not choose to go forward then. We could have been a month ahead of where we are now.

Having said that, I agree; it is definitely an improved piece of legislation, in the sense that it delivers to more people. As I said in my remarks, we cannot escape the fact that we do not have within the federal government a system of direct delivery to citizens with disabilities. We do for seniors, and we do for families and for children, but we need to work on one for people with disabilities.

Yes, this is going to be super complicated at the back end, but people with disabilities need not apply whatsoever for this. They are actually given an opportunity, if they do not hold a disability tax certificate, to get one or apply for one so they can get this benefit. We are going to do the heavy lifting. It is going to be super complicated administratively at the back end, but as a result we are doing the best we can to deliver using a system that really is not functioning at this time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech. I understand that she deeply cares about the living conditions of people with disabilities and thinks that this is an important issue.

It would have been nice if the bill could have been passed in early July. Perhaps people living with disabilities would now have access to that money to help them deal with the challenges they are facing.

Now that I see that the minister cares about the situation of the most vulnerable members of our society and those who are struggling, I will ask her this question.

The bill that I am sponsoring seeks to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance from 15 to 50 for those who are grappling with a serious illness and should not have the added worry of struggling to pay their rent and make ends meet.

If I were to ask her to support my bill on EI sickness benefits tomorrow, will the minister extend her concern for people with disabilities to others who are struggling?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely assure you that we have decided to up benefits from 15 to 26 weeks for people receiving employment insurance because of illness. That is really important. As we saw with the CERB, we have to support people who are sick so they can make the right decisions for their health and their families as well as for the health of our communities.

I am absolutely determined to change the act and increase the number of weeks from 15 to 26. I am committed to making that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

I sometimes have a hard time understanding the Liberal government's ability to respond. When it is time to breathe some life into the big banks so they can issue more loans, that gets done instantaneously. When they say they are going to stop giving public funds to companies that send their money to tax havens, it takes 24 hours and then they backtrack, because that is untouchable. When it is time to award a billon-dollar contract, they do so untendered and then award it to an organization run by the Prime Minister's buddies—not to mention that his mother and brother are on the payroll. However, when it comes to providing assistance to people living with disabilities, they waited until July 20.

Why is it that they are incapable of turning around and helping people living with disabilities but they can turn on a dime when it comes to helping the richest, most fortunate Canadians, the banks and the friends of the Liberal Party?

That is strange, is it not?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been supporting persons with disabilities since the beginning of this pandemic.

Families receiving the Canada child benefit get it for their children with disabilities. Students receiving the Canada emergency student benefit get an extra $750 a month if they have a disability. We know that it is harder for persons with disabilities to find a job and that they have more expenses. Seniors with a disability are entitled to the disability tax credit. We wanted to be sure to reach the group of people who had not received these other benefits. We wanted to be sure to help the most vulnerable who were not included in the other measures.

Even though the system is difficult, I also wanted to make sure that we were not paying some people twice and others not at all. We wanted to be sure to give money to the people who need it most in the reality of the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, first of all, how much I appreciate the work of the minister in digging down into the weeds of what is a patchwork, if not a minefield, of how benefits and services are delivered to disabled people in this country.

In my riding, this is one of the big surprises that people have any time I speak to them. I am a former financial educator. I used to talk about the disability tax credit often with people, and it was a great surprise to many of them that this was something that could actually apply to people who have mobility restrictions, as well as, on the other side, people who have cognitive deficiencies. Of course, the families and the patients were in the throes of that and finding it very difficult to get the DTC. It has been expanded so that occupational therapists and physiotherapists can sign the certificate, and now also nurse practitioners.

Can the minister tell this House how members of Parliament can further help in this very important work?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity over the next 60 days, or I guess 60 days from when this bill receives royal assent, to really dig in as members of Parliament and help as many of our constituents as possible, and the organizations that help them, access the disability tax credit.

We will be providing support to members of Parliament. We will be providing support to disability organizations to help their members access this tax credit. This will immediately help people, in the form of a $600 payment, but it will also provide people access to a myriad of other services that the federal government offers for people with disabilities who require the DTC.

I will give an example. The Canada child benefit provides an additional amount each month if the child has a disability. In order to get that additional amount, the child has to be eligible for the DTC. This is completely silly, with all due respect, because there could be parents who perhaps have a child who was just born with a significant disability, and they have to navigate the tax system in order to allow their child to get a benefit the child is entitled to.

It is far from perfect, but having the 60-day window will allow us to get as many people as possible through the door while we fix the bigger problems.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber. I am very pleased, as are my colleagues in the official opposition, that the finance minister has finally, in Bill C-20, announced these long-awaited measures, but it is worth noting that they have come at a very convenient time for the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

The ethics committee was about to meet and begin a deeper dive into the third ethical scandal facing the Prime Minister and his government. In classic fashion, the finance minister, also under investigation, and also having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, has tried to distract Canadians with a big money bill and help for people that the government delayed helping when it had the chance.

The Prime Minister has long promised openness, accountability and transparency, telling us that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and he made a commitment to do politics differently, but here we are for a third time as our Prime Minister is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner for his part in the scandal involving the WE organization. The two times he was found guilty of breaking the ethics laws tell us that we do not need to wait for a report, but need the Prime Minister to come clean.

It is clear that ethical considerations are often thrown to the wayside in the PMO and under the Prime Minister. Truly, it has been a theme since he came to office. First, it was his illegal trip to billionaire island, where the Prime Minister was found to have violated sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. He accepted gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island, which were seen as gifts that could have influenced the Prime Minister. Further, the Prime Minister was found to have contravened the act when he did not recuse himself from the discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further a private interest.

Then, of course, it was the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in which the Prime Minister was found to have contravened section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 9 prohibits public office holders from using their position to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further their own private interests or those of their relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests. This will not be the only time I mention the Prime Minister's friends and relatives, as it deals with conflicts of interest and his dealings. In this case, it was a clear violation by the Prime Minister when he undertook a campaign to influence the then attorney general into letting his friends at SNC-Lavalin off the hook by interfering in a criminal prosecution.

Now the Prime Minister is being investigated for his role in awarding a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced deal to an organization that has deep ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and deep and direct ties to the Prime Minister's family and him. The awarding of this contract is now being investigated by multiple committees of the House of Commons and has spawned two probes by the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner has announced that he is examining the actions of the Prime Minister in awarding this contract and whether he broke the law again by not recusing himself from the decision despite his close ties.

The Ethics Commissioner has also announced that he is investigating the finance minister for his role in awarding the contract and not recusing himself despite his own close ties to this organization.

As I mentioned before, the finance minister is no stranger to the Ethics Commissioner, having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws already because, as I am sure most Canadians can relate, he forgot he had a French villa and a corporation in France. It happens to the best of us I am sure, but despite the fact that one of the finance minister's—

[An hon. member]

A common man's problem.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

A common man's problem indeed.

Despite the fact that one of the finance minister's daughters worked for WE and his family took a WE-sponsored trip in Ecuador, he did not recuse himself.

Now all of these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister and the finance minister follow the same pattern. The Prime Minister will deny he did anything wrong; then he will try to pass the buck; then he will say that he is sorry and then he will get the rest of the Liberals to cover it up.

He said he is sorry, but we know he is only sorry he got caught. If he were sorry, he would have accepted the invitation to appear at committee. If he were sorry, he would waive cabinet confidence. Really, if he were sorry, could he not have just written a letter to the chair of these committees and said that in light of very public revelations about his failure to recuse himself from deliberations and discussions concerning a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced agreement with a firm he has direct ties to, he would like to appear at their committees? Would that not have been the transparency the Prime Minister called for?

We know when the Prime Minister says he is sorry that, he is “sorry, not sorry”. That is why he blocked the investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We know from the “Trudeau II Report” it was the second time the Prime Minister had broken the law, the second time he had the distinction of being the first prime minister in Canada to to be found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We know from that report that there were nine people who wanted to provide testimony to the commissioner during his investigation, but were not able to. Why? Their response was uniform: it was because it would reveal a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.

What does that mean? It means that the witnesses were muzzled by cabinet confidence. It means they were not allowed to testify. They were not allowed to listen to their conscience. How can that be? We heard in this very place that the Liberals fully co-operate with the work of officers of Parliament and the Ethics Commissioner every time.

The then government House leader talked about the historic waiving of cabinet confidences. That is not the case. It is not what happened.

He got away with it. He got away with obstructing that investigation. The Prime Minister was not properly incentivized to follow the rules.

We follow that pattern and we find the Prime Minister yet again facing an investigation.

With the WE Charity scandal unfolding before us and despite the Prime Minister's best efforts to the contrary, it is important to establish the facts as we know them. We know this did not begin with the government picking the WE organization at random in June to administer a program for youth. In fact, we found out that the WE organization was pitching the government in mid-April before the government even announced the program. We know that the organization circulated a proposal to several ministers in mid-April.

On April 19, at a meeting with officials from the finance department and ESDC, a Finance official told another senior official, who testified at the finance committee, Ms. Wernick, the senior assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development Canada, that in fact it was she who contacted the WE organization.

It is interesting that a mid-level public servant picked up the phone, got the founder of this organization, which we know has tens of millions of dollars in real estate holdings in downtown Toronto among all of its laundry list of other things it engages in, and said, “It is me calling. Is that WE? It is,” and it was the founder on the phone ready to take her call. I am not sure how surprised they were at the WE organization to find out that they were going to be on the receiving end of administering nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.

We also found out at that meeting that this organization was going to benefit by about $43 million dollars in administrative fees. We heard today one of the ministers say that it was just $43 million. What is $43 million between friends?

On April 22, interestingly, the Prime Minister announced that the government would be moving ahead with plans to help young people economically during the crisis and that details would follow later, but while the Prime Minister was making that announcement, the WE organization was submitting a new proposal to the government by email to that same public servant who placed the call only a few days before.

We know that a few days later Volunteer Canada, a national coordinating body for the volunteer sector, reached out to the government to offer support in building a volunteer program aimed at youth. In response, little information was made available while program approval was pending. The government was not interested in Volunteer Canada's expertise or help, and what happened next is most interesting.

The WE organization, which had not been awarded anything at that point in time, contacted Volunteer Canada, which was told that the government did not need its help, and asked for help administering a really big program that was worth about $912 million. That is interesting. I thought that Volunteer Canada was not needed by the government. That is very interesting, and it is interesting, indeed, that the WE organization was already calling people, knowing that they had this in the bag.

Meetings were held between May 25 and June 5 between those groups, and on June 5 Volunteer Canada told the WE organization that it would not be participating, citing several problems with the program, including that the program was going to pay students below minimum wage in any province they participated. That does not sound like help for students.

That is very strange, because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, called for funding for the Canada summer jobs program to be increased beyond what the government had committed this year. I can tell you that in my riding, there were employers approved by the government and who had advised my office that they had students who had applied to work, but that the fund ran out of money.

There were lots of employment opportunities. There was a structure already set up. The Government of Canada was prepared to administer that, but suddenly this new program, plucked out of thin air almost inexplicably, to the benefit of $43 million for these administrators, at a cost of $912 million to the taxpayer and paying less than minimum wage to all program participants, was invented by the government.

I think Volunteer Canada's concerns were right on the money. That kind of consulting, which the government got for free, was for a program with all kinds of problems, but the government bashed on, and on June 25 the Prime Minister announced the program, and later that day his minister said that the WE organization would be administering it.

The current government dismisses questions of conflicts of interest in the awarding of the contract, and the PMO and the WE organization have told several media outlets that the Prime Minister's family was not paid to speak at WE events. Later, on July 3, the WE organization announced that it would not be administering this program. On that same day, the Ethics Commissioner, in response to my letter, announced he would be launching an investigation of the Prime Minister.

On July 9, we learned that the Prime Minister's family was paid by the WE organization.

On July 15, the WE organization issued a statement that it was returning to its roots and would conduct a review of its structure and activities. When a cheque is about to be cut for $912 million, due diligence by the government would have meant that it would have taken a look at what WE's structure and activities were: a board in shambles and a bank covenant not met.

A review of structure and activities should have been done by the Government of Canada before it offered its friends at WE Charity $43 million in a bailout. It is an unusual pattern, to say the least, but these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister certainly followed the same pattern I mentioned before.

Members will remember from the SNC-Lavalin scandal that the Prime Minister's first response was that the allegations in The Globe and Mail were false. We know that this was demonstrably false now. That was proven when it was deemed that he broke the law. The Liberal Prime Minister broke the law. His statements were false.

The Prime Minister's ties to this organization, the finance minister's ties to this organization and the Liberal Party's ties to this organization are deep and there are many.

It is hard to believe that there was no one in the cabinet room and no one on the line who saw this conflict, this problem on the horizon. Is it that everyone knows what happens when someone stands up to the Prime Minister? We saw that with the member for Vancouver Granville, the former attorney general. We saw that with Dr. Jane Philpott, the former president of the treasury board. She stood up to the Prime Minister. What happened to Dr. Philpott? What happened to Canada's first female indigenous attorney general? The Prime Minister fired them, and those Liberals sat silently when that happened. They were complicit in that cover-up and they are complicit in this one.

The Liberals filibustered at the ethics committee on Friday and waited until they talked out the clock. They spoke virtually uninterrupted for hours about all things unrelated and demonstrated misunderstanding in some cases and hypocrisy in others. I took to the floor to encourage them to have the courage of their convictions to vote. If they were going to vote against, they should let the chips fall where they may. Votes are won and lost all the time. However, they moved to adjourn the meeting. They did not have the courage of their convictions. They wanted to further the cover-up.

Therefore, we had the announcement for this bill. The Prime Minister has said it is all about helping people. When the WE Charity scandal first broke, he said that it was all about helping the children. I think it is all about helping the friends, family and donors of the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve better. The Prime Minister must allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work unobstructed, with transparency, that disinfectant value that sunlight brings. He should waive cabinet confidence. What does he have to hide?

I call on all Liberals to have the courage of their convictions, to appeal to their better angels and to let the Prime Minister know that what he represents is not what Canadians deserve.

Canadians deserve better. They have elected 338 members. They have elected a Liberal caucus that can let their leader know that his behaviour is unacceptable. If they will not ask him to resign, why do they not at least tell him that he must appear at committee, must waive cabinet confidence and must own this scandal?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite encapsulates what the Conservative approach to being in the official opposition has really been about over the last number of years, It has been the character assassination of the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance or others. It has been fairly clear. All one needs to do is review what has happened over the last number of years. While the Conservatives are so determined to continue that character assassination, we as a government will continue to work day in and day out to serve Canadians in all regions of our country.

The very issue we are debating today is Bill C-20. It is about supporting people with disabilities. It is about making changes to the wage subsidy program. Canadians want and expect the House to deal with these things. Could the member provide any comments whatsoever with respect to Bill C-20, something Canadians want to see passed?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to start after the member's outburst. He said that we were all about character assassination, yet one has to have a character to assassinate, and that is not what we see here.

If we look at the measures that have been put in front of us today, we have been asking for these things to happen for months. However, the Liberals wanted to talk about anything but this. Now they want to talk about it because of another one of the Prime Minister's scandals. He has embarrassed our country on the world stage. This this is being reported in media around the world. This is his hallmark. When he says that Canada is back, Canada is back on the front pages in a really negative way under the Prime Minister, under the member's Prime Minister.

It is a shame that the Liberals filibustered that committee last week. It is a shame that the Liberals waited so long to bring measures to the House to help Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his very thoughtful comments on the scandal that is taking place now in our country. It is a common practice when one enters into a contract to do due diligence. In this case, no such thing took place except that the Prime Minister handed over a big fat contract of $912 million to a friend's organization.

How much due diligence does the hon. member believe happened and if proper due diligence had happened, what could have been the result compared to what we have right now?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, we heard the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth say that she believed public servants had done their due diligence. Our professional public service is known for just that, being professional. However, it is around the cabinet table where it looks like that due diligence fell short. It did not look at the potential conflicts, of which there are many. It did not look at the publicly available information that the board of this organization was in a shambles. While rumours abound and close ties persist, there was no comment or concern about the financial jeopardy this company was in.

Therefore, due diligence could have certainly saved the country a lot of embarrassment, but it also could have saved the government a lot of embarrassment. Financial prudence is not the government's hallmark. For once, we would like self-awareness for brand Canada from the Liberals.