Bill C-14 (Historical)

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to provide additional support to families with young children as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses. It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to provide a similar benefit in respect of young children under that Act. As part of the Government’s response to COVID-19, it amends the Income Tax Act to provide that an expense can qualify as a qualifying rent expense for the purposes of the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS) when it becomes due rather than when it is paid, provided certain conditions are met.
Part 2 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on a guaranteed student loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by the borrower.
Part 3 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on a student loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by the borrower.
Part 4 amends the Apprentice Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on an apprentice loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by a borrower.
Part 5 amends the Food and Drugs Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations
(a) requiring persons to provide information to the Minister of Health; and
(b) preventing shortages of therapeutic products in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.
It also amends that Act to provide that any prescribed provisions of regulations made under that Act apply to food, drugs, cosmetics and devices intended for export that would otherwise be exempt from the application of that Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund
(a) to the Government of Canada’s regional development agencies for the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund;
(b) in respect of specified initiatives related to health; and
(c) for the purpose of making income support payments under section 4 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act.
Part 7 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings and include certain borrowings that were previously excluded in the calculation of that amount. It also makes a related amendment to the Financial Administration Act.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Since time is limited, I would like to ensure that the member's response will be brief.

Could the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles clarify?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker. By CHSLD we mean the long-term care centres for seniors.

The Liberal government plans to impose national standards on senior care homes when that is a provincial jurisdiction—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for a brief response.

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

Madam Speaker, we would like to see the federal government work with the provinces to establish national standards. That is certain. However, with that collaboration, there has to be a table where the provinces are working with the federal government to determine what those standards are. I believe that Canadian provinces should be able to come to the table and land on minimum standards that anyone could expect to have in their care, wherever they live in the country, whether it is in Quebec or elsewhere.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity last week to connect with Lembi Buchanan and other volunteers with the Disability Tax Fairness Campaign, and they identified all the ways in which the disability tax credit leaves so many disabled Canadians out, by definition of the eligibility for the disability tax credit.

The government has put a paltry $600 out during this pandemic. Would the member care to comment on what it would mean for Canadians across the country for his proposal of a guaranteed basic livable income of $2,200 for people living with disabilities to come through?

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the hidden costs of not investing in people, I think one of the things that is important to know is that there are all sorts of people who are trying to access the disability tax credit. The rules are convoluted and sometimes changing. Without changing on paper, they change in their interpretation. Those things can be very hard to access, and they benefit predominantly the people who already have the most income because they are the ones who pay the most taxes within the disability community.

Policing all of that has a bureaucratic cost that could be spent actually supporting people living with disabilities, not legislating them into poverty with the kinds of rates we see with provincial and federal disability programs across the country. That relief from financial stress would also allow us to unlock the potential of people living with disabilities in Canada who have a lot to offer, but many spend most of their days struggling with the challenges of poverty instead of being able to contribute their time and talent to other things.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate on the impression New Democrats often leave that we have billionaires running around the country. I do not know how many there are, but there seems to be a lot according to the numbers from the New Democrats.

When he talks about a wealth tax, what percentage would be on individuals versus corporations? Often corporations are owned in part by large pension plans, union organizations and so forth. Can he comment as to whether he is talking about that group of people also?

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

Madam Speaker, the wealth tax we propose is on fortunes over $20 million. That does not affect a lot of people in my riding. I do not think it affects a lot of people in the riding of Winnipeg North, but it does affect a lot of folks at the top who have been getting a pretty good ride for the last 20 or 30 years seeing their tax rates go down.

We are talking about going after a smaller number of people within Canada to have them pay a proportionately larger share of the overall tab similar to they way they used to. It is not as if this is unprecedented. The rate of taxation the NDP is proposing today is less than what it was in the immediate post-war period.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member was talking about basic income. As he knows, and as has been brought up by various people in the House, there is a growing movement to study basic income to see how it could be implemented in a country like Canada. We have heard a lot from the Conservatives that this would call for x billion dollars, but they never seem to talk about the savings that might come from the fact that a number of different programs could be amalgamated into this one single concept.

I wonder if the member would take the opportunity to address some of what I see as falsehoods, as they relate to only talking about the costs without talking about the savings and the value added for the people who could be recipients.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously there are some opportunities for savings. It is important to say there is a lot more to poverty than income. We cannot get rid of poverty without solving the income problem, and a guaranteed annual income can help with that, but accessing affordable housing will continue to be an issue.

To the extent that people are sometimes living in poverty because they are dealing with addictions or mental health issues, that is where support is still required. People will not be able to afford any kind of expenses, such as a vehicle, on a guaranteed annual income, so we need to continue to invest in public transportation. These are all things we still have to do, but there are real savings that can be realized, such as some bureaucratic savings. Also, we have to account for the revenue that comes back when people who do not have money get more and spend it in their local economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the short time I have to speak on Bill C-14. I do want to address a couple of things.

First, Parliament still reigns supreme in the approval of spending powers. It has been that way since Parliament existed, and it is still that way today, for now. What is important about that, and the reason I bring it up is that we have seen over the course of this pandemic, and it has been a heck of a year, certain plays made by the government to try to seize control and seize power.

We saw it at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020, when the Liberals introduced a piece of legislation that would have given them unfettered control over the Treasury, and the ability to tax and spend up until 2022. If it were not for that push-back from the opposition, all opposition parties, and particularly Canadians, I would hate to see what type of position we would have been in today.

The other thing we saw, and it really speaks to the cynicism we have in some cases dealing with the government and what it is trying to push forward in legislation, particularly spending legislation, is that last fall we effectively had four hours to approve a $54-billion spending bill after the government put a time allocation on it.

I know the previous speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, spoke about this, but we have all played our part in ensuring that Canadians get the benefits as a result of this pandemic. We have all been there, Conservatives, NDP, Greens and Liberals, as well as the Bloc, to make sure that Canadians have the supports they need.

When it became clear that this was an increasing public health crisis and that public health advice needed to be followed, it meant that many businesses had to be shut down, and this affected not just businesses but also the people they employed. All of those things had to happen. Those supports were needed.

In many cases, as members will recall, those supports fell way short of what was needed. It should be no surprise to anybody in this House, and no surprise to anybody who is watching, that there are a lot of regional differences that exist in this country. There is a differing of opinions. It is still okay to have that.

Much of what I was bringing to this House and what I was bringing to ministers at the time was precisely what I was hearing from my constituents, whether it was from the business community or individuals, of just how short some of these programs were. There is the case of Tony and Anna Gillespie, for example, who own a tae kwon do studio in my riding. They just started their business last year. Even up to this point, they have not been able to access some of those benefits.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is an example. When the government introduced that as legislation, it came in at 10%. It was the opposition parties, and I emphasize the plural because it was not just the Conservatives, and individual MPs who were telling the government that that 10% was woefully inadequate. We saw that subsequently bumped up to 75% as a result.

What I am speaking to more broadly is that many of these programs were either too restrictive or too prescriptive at the time. It was important for us to make sure that the government was aware of that. In many cases it moved, and in some cases, as is the case with Tony and Anne Gillespie, the government has not moved far enough.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

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

The hammer drops once again, Madam Speaker.

In the time that I have left, and there is not much of it, I want to talk about what the bill proposes. We can support many aspects of it. In fact, we did support it through committee and several suggestions were made at committee. However, it is disturbing that the debt ceiling is going to be raised over $600 billion. When we think of where we were a year and a half ago, the overall debt in the country was $600 billion. We are now looking at $1.83 trillion in debt, and that is concerning.

I know it is awfully difficult for people to understand the magnitude of what we are going to be facing with respect to deficits. We know right now that we are at $343 billion roughly. Hopefully, we will find out on Monday with the budget exactly where we are. That combined with the actual debt, which today stands at $1.2 trillion, is quite concerning.

Again, I am not discounting the fact that Canadians have needed the help, but we have been focused a lot over the last year on the expense side of the ledger. Many of the measures that have been implemented have been there to support Canadians, but there is a reason we continue to be in what is seemingly a never-ending pandemic scenario, and that is because of the failure of the government to procure vaccines and to ensure there is enough vaccine distribution for Canadians.

This amount of deficit, the increased spending, is going to continue, but at some point we really have to start turning our minds to the revenue side of the ledger and how we are going to pay for this. Make no mistake that, yes, government has supported Canadians and has taken on a hefty burden of that debt, but at some point it will have to be paid back.

Two things happen: Taxes go up and services go down. That is just a fact of life, and I think most Canadians would understand that, but we have to focus on what an economic recovery looks like.

Economic recovery has to include every part, every sector, every region and every individual of the country. It is not some reimagined or imaginary economy. Canada will have to rely on the power of our businesses. We will have to rely on the people who are employed in those businesses, the products they produce and ensure we are competitive both domestically and internationally. We need to create an air of investor confidence both here, domestically, and for foreign investment as well. When I talk about every sector of our economy having to fire on all cylinders to pay for the debt and deficit situation we are in, that includes ever sector of our economy, including our natural resource sector. These are the important things we are going to have to eventually turn our minds to.

When I talk to people, I ask them how much is too much when it comes to that. I think of my former life as a firefighter and the salary that a firefighter, a nurse and all those occupations make. If they pay 40% income tax right now, how much is too much to pay for this unless we get our economy going again? Is 50%, 60% or so on too much? Is raising the GST 5%, 6% or so on too much? What about home equity taxes? Is taking the capital gains and paying the equity that people have built into their home going to be too much at that point? We know that the government has looked at it. We know that CMHC has proposed a study on this through the University of British Columbia.

A former finance minister stood up in the House and guaranteed Canadians something. I asked him many times whether he would implement a home equity tax. He said no. He is no longer here. Maybe the Prime Minister has found the path of least resistance, because we know that is a low-hanging fruit opportunity for them as well.

These are the types of things that should be on the minds of Canadians when it comes to the government proposal, through legislation, to raise debt ceilings, incurring more and more debt and deficits. Eventually, somebody will have to pay for this. Canadians are not naive. They know that money does not grow with fairy dust or grow on trees. They know that eventually somebody will have to pay for this.

Of course, to create this booming economy coming out of this recession where nobody is left behind, it is in terms of those sectors and regions around the country to create the tax revenue, both from a corporate tax standpoint where the businesses are making money to pay those taxes, and from the individuals who are gainfully employed paying those taxes, which is going to become critical to the success of our economic recovery.

I Just wanted to make those points, and that Parliament reigns supreme still. We have the oversight of government spending, and that has to be maintained. Fortunately, for all Canadians, we have been in a minority situation where we have been able to highlight some of the inefficiencies of this government in the past. I fear that if a majority situation were to happen, Canadians would be worse off. So, we are going to provide an alternative to Canadians. We are going to talk about the economy. We are going to secure our future. We are going to make sure that every Canadian succeeds coming out of this pandemic.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.