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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Carleton, for really laying this out in a simple way so Canadians can understand.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said at one point that the problem with socialism was that eventually they would run out of other people's money, and the member spoke about his concern with respect to money.

Over the weekend, we heard about a scheme that was being developed, which is being studied and supported by CMHC, presumably in support of the government, on a home equity tax on Canadians. Could my hon. colleague speak to that, to the concerns that Canadians should have with that and to the impact that it will have financially on Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a political party that has tried to convince Canadians again and again that it can spend limitlessly without ever having anyone pay for it, and now we see that again. The Liberals claim that they can just create the money out of thin air and spend that instead of paying bills, like is mathematically required in every society everywhere in the world. We know that is not true, and they do too. That is why they are starting to concoct schemes to raise money.

We learned over the weekend from some intrepid journalists over at Blacklock's that the government was now studying, through CMHC, the prospect of a new tax on home equity. That would be a way for the government to take the wealth that Canadians have legitimately stored in their homes, the wealth upon which the retirement of millions of Canadians depend, in order to pay for permanent expansions of government spending; in other words, enrich the governmental cabal that the Liberals control at the expense of home-owning Canadians.

I want those Canadians to be assured that the Conservatives will do as we have always done, which is to fight tooth and nail against this new home tax the Liberals are planning.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, who concluded his remarks by saying that he was ready to work with all parliamentarians to improve these government programs.

Regarding the CERB, I have to admit that I was a little surprised. As far back as late March, we proposed introducing incentives, and we got nothing but radio silence from our Conservative friends. They did not get fired up about this until the end of June.

I am therefore wondering how my colleague's thought process evolved between March and June.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I think the two parties remember things differently. From my understanding, it was the Bloc leader who was inspired by a Conservative Party idea to allow people to earn more and be compensated accordingly. I therefore must congratulate the leader and members of the Bloc for taking inspiration from their Conservative friends. We are always happy to inspire them.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in the House with all the chuckles I hear today. Quite frankly, I get a chuckle any time I hear Liberals called socialists, when we have a corporatist party that continues to provide tax loopholes for the ultra-wealthy. We hear the Conservatives lamenting about the upcoming looming debt, the confusion around who creates value and who hoards wealth in the country.

If the Conservatives are so worried about debt, will they support the New Democrats' call for a wealth tax on the super, super rich, which would raise nearly $6 billion a year, and crack down on the estimated $25 billion in corporate taxes that we lose to tax havens each and every year?

If Conservatives are a law and order party, will they support law and order within our tax regime?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we support law and order within our tax regime. Every person should pay what he or she owes and every business should pay what it owes.

However, there is some confusion in the premise of the member's question. He speaks as though socialism and corporatism are at odds. In fact, they are the ugly twin brothers of economic ideology.

The corporatist agenda of the Liberal Party is perfectly compatible with the socialist agenda of the NDP. Both rely on big government to take away the product of workers' work, and to take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned and give it to those who have political connections.

In big government socialist economies, we always know that the rich do well, because they have the most political power and they convert that political power into riches for themselves.

We believe in the free enterprise system that rewards merit and hard work, a bottom-up economy. That is the economy for which we fight in the Conservative Party.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have corporate constituents in Thornhill who would bitterly agree with my hon. colleague about the delay of the remedial legislation before the House and the cobweb of complexity that they are learning about today as they read this legislation.

These corporate constituents, who employ thousands of workers, with a payroll totalling millions of dollars, with partnerships and a corporate structure that have been in place for a quarter century, have been, until now, denied by the Canada Revenue Agency.

My colleague has addressed the issue of the costly cobweb of complexities, but I wonder if he can tell the House, having read this legislation, whether there is provision for retroactivity of the claims unfairly denied.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand there is some retroactivity for some of the administrative eligibility, but there is no retroactivity for the new thresholds and formula to determine the eligibility and amounts that would be paid under the wage subsidy. A technical briefing may give the member and his constituents better information than I can offer.

The new rates that are being brought in, the removal of the 30% cliff, all of that is prospective. Some of the administrative eligibility rules are retroactive.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for La Prairie.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member does have the consent of the House.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, were it not for our considerable ideological, and sometimes tactical, differences, I would take immense pleasure in listening to my esteemed colleague. However, those major differences cannot be ignored.

Our conviction that the Canadian emergency response benefit needs to be adjusted does not come from the Bloc Québécois, but from Quebeckers themselves. It comes from Quebec's economic circles. It comes from Quebec's businesses, which have expressed concern that this measure, in its current form, disincentivizes going back to work. The return to work is essential for the economic recovery. The people—and the government—of Quebec deserve all the credit for these insights. We humbly salute them.

Bill C-20 does have its good points. There is nothing bad about Bill C-20 per se. There is not very much in it, and not everything we would have liked to see, but there are reasonably good things in it. This got me thinking.

It would be nice if at times we did not confuse constituents with voters. A constituent is not just a voter. A constituent is not just someone we hope will mark an X next to the right person's name and the right party, once every x number of years. A constituent is much more than that. In that sense, it would be good, independent of other issues we debate in the House, if we always worked with a view to providing people the best, including the best parties and the best candidates, and not just the least bad.

We have the least bad legislative measure in the circumstances, but it is missing a few pieces. Let's remain positive though.

First, there is just one criterion for the Bloc Québécois: Is Bill C-20 good for Quebec? Does it serve the interests of Quebec? Honestly, the answer is yes, in many ways.

There was a bit of an imbroglio having to do with the parliamentary manoeuvring around the initial tabling of a bill that included help for persons with disabilities. That situation did not end well. That was a number of weeks ago and this has caused a delay. Today, we can end the delay and ensure that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I would ask those outside the chamber to stop talking because that makes it difficult to hear. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I would like it to be quiet outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is the Liberals' lobby; we know what they are like. I believe it is the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain who caused the problem. Let us be serious as the construction holiday begins.

For people living with a disability, there is an improvement from what was offered before. We are therefore in favour of it. There are measures concerning legal time limits; no one is against that. We support that.

There is an improvement in the wage subsidy program that makes it accessible. As I stated this morning at a scrum, that is good news. The program can be accessed by many seasonal businesses which, until now, had no support. That is important, especially in Quebec's regions and in eastern Quebec. That is good news.

We all understand that these programs will have to be phased out sooner or later. The debt accumulated as a result of the pandemic and the federal government's decisions is enormous. There are useful elements, and others that are less so. There seems to be something interesting in this measure. Adjusting the amounts that can be accessed according to the real losses incurred is in itself an improvement.

However, political parties—and above all the Liberal Party of Canada—continue to claim they have the right to receive the wage subsidy.

My understanding was that, on the short list of parties that can be considered serious—and there is one other one—the Conservatives are considering forgoing the wage subsidy. That will depend on who wins the leadership race. I firmly believe that political parties should not be contributing to Canada's national deficit at a time like this. That does not make any sense to me. This would have been a good opportunity to put things right.

I suspect that if the Liberal government had had the wisdom to drop the wage subsidy as a simple gesture, perhaps some of its party members would have donated a little more. I bet the average Liberal donor has good judgment, just like the average Conservative donor or the average Bloc donor. If I were in the Liberals' shoes, I would have thought about that.

As was mentioned earlier, the CERB was created as an emergency program. This measure could have taken several forms. In its current form, the measure was good and positive. As everyone knows, any program created in an emergency might include some temporarily uncertain aspects. That is okay; we can live with that.

Now, months later, we need to improve it. There is still a big problem with work incentives. The Government of Quebec and the economic community, among others, have raised this issue a number of times. This program is detrimental to workers' return to work. We heard a lot about this issue with respect to students, but we should not kid ourselves. There are not many weeks left.

Something needs to be done about the Canada emergency benefit. Do we need to change the program? Should we replace it with something else? Should it be integrated into the EI program? All of these are possible options, and we are open to any constructive suggestions that will serve the greater good, the economy and the interests of Quebec.

The last time we spoke about the Canada emergency benefit in the House, fraud seemed to be a very serious issue. All of a sudden, it is no big deal and it is no longer being mentioned, even though this was a good opportunity. I think all reasonable members of the House, which I suppose is almost everyone, are in favour of combatting fraud.

The Canada emergency response benefit, in its current form, does nothing for artists. It was great that big events were protected, but they would have no soul without the artists and artisans sharing their work. These people have not received any assistance from the Canadian government. Something needed to be done.

If there is one thing on which we agree with the Liberal government, it is that we must be generous in welcoming others. In Quebec, we want to welcome the guardian angels. We want their cases to be prioritized because they helped Quebec during a very difficult period.

I cannot imagine the Liberal Party not being in favour of that idea. We would have to talk about it with our Conservative Party colleagues. We are very comfortable with it, and it is something we have been advocating for some time. This was a great opportunity squandered.

Just a few minutes ago, I got a message from Louis Sansfaçon, the father of Émilie Sansfaçon. Why is the government not doing something to address the demand, the need, for 50 weeks of employment insurance benefits for the seriously ill, who are currently entitled to just 15 weeks? The government said it would be 26 weeks, but that has not changed yet; it is still 15 weeks. Why is the government not taking this opportunity to address the issue and demonstrate some good judgment and compassion?

Those are the things that should have been done differently. Those are the things that we feel are necessary. The government should have seized the opportunity to help more Quebeckers, and more Canadians too, for what it is worth. That is the kind of progress we can get behind. Let's all get behind that and make some more progress.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the leader's comments. I want to pick up a bit on the wage subsidy program. It has been of huge benefit for workers not only in the province of Quebec but indeed throughout Canada. I understand that well over two million jobs have been saved because of this program.

I wonder if the member would concur on how important it was that we got a program out there as quickly as possible at that point in time, recognizing that there would be some need for modifications. When we introduce a new program from virtually nothing, there is going to be a need to make changes. Working with opposition members, such as the leader of the Bloc, and Canadians as a whole, is really what in essence is captured in this bill with respect to the wage program. Could he provide his further thoughts on the issue?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my esteemed colleague ask a number of questions, and I assume he wants me to repeat what he said, preferably in French. That might be a bit of wishful thinking on his part.

Yes, some of the measures were quite relevant. Then again, not everything could be described as well balanced in the original version, what with the government offering both the wage subsidy and the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB.

The reason the wage subsidy was such a dismal failure initially is that the CERB did not include any incentive to go back to work. That kept thousands, if not tens or even hundreds of thousands, of people out of the labour market.

Some employers preferred to have their employees apply for the CERB rather than use the wage subsidy. There is still time to improve this and save the Canadian government a few billion dollars.