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

[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, we actually need to recognize and provide substantial support to our culture and arts community. That community plays a very important role in our society, and there is no doubt it has been hit very hard because of the coronavirus. Many cultural shows were cancelled and artists have found it very difficult, and so I am wondering if my colleague could continue to provide his thoughts on how this industry plays a critical role in our communities, whether in terms of jobs or just our Canadian heritage. That is why it was so important that we reached out and supported that community through some of our programs over the last 12 months.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention.

Indeed, it is a very important industry in Quebec and Canada that represents tens of billions of dollars. In fact, if my most recent figures are correct, it is a $53-billion industry.

It is true that some programs have been quick to help the cultural industry. In our recent studies of these programs, we found that the artists were often the last to actually get any money. Of course, organizations such as broadcasters and producers have been helped as much as possible, but at the end of the day, the most vulnerable—the unemployed artists, technicians or contract workers—do not benefit from the subsidies that are provided to organizations and broadcasters.

This is a shortcoming that must be addressed quickly because we do not want to lose this talent and this resource, which generates not only significant economic benefits, but also great cultural wealth.

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

Before continuing, I would like to thank technical services and the hon. parliamentary secretary for their patience and goodwill. We will now let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources resume his speech.

He has the floor for four minutes. Afterwards, there will be five minutes for questions.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to resume debate. I would also like to thank technical services for their support.

We plan to increase our forest cover by 1.2 million hectares, an area twice the size of Prince Edward Island. Doing this will cut overall emissions by up to 12 megatonnes by 2050, all the while we are creating more than 4,000 jobs. There are additional benefits. This commitment will also create more habitat for wildlife, improve biodiversity, and enhance our ability to restore habitat for species at risk, like the boreal caribou and migratory birds.

Still, this is a complex undertaking that takes time. We must work closely with provincial and territorial governments that own and manage 90% of Canada's forests. Of course, we must work with indigenous groups, continuing to build capacity and focusing on partnerships.

We also have to contend with delays caused by the pandemic. That is why, early in the pandemic, our government put up $30 million to help small and medium-sized businesses in the forestry sector, including tree planting companies, to offset the costs of COVID-19 safety measures. This helped keep workers in nearby communities safe, all the while that more than 600 seedlings were successfully put in the ground.

The main reason we are approaching this carefully is that planting trees is a complex and delicate undertaking, as I said. We must plant the right tree in the right place at the right time, and ensure that seedlings in nurseries and young trees survive, providing us with their long-term benefits. For instance, which trees do we choose to ensure that new forests or reforested areas can withstand a warming climate, or which trees and techniques will restore particular habitats, and how do we ensure that newly planted trees near city streets survive their urban environments?

Clearly, the federal government cannot do this alone, which is why we are also talking with municipalities and community groups, non-governmental organizations and green entrepreneurs, philanthropic and conservation organizations, universities and colleges, indigenous communities and organizations. This is indeed an enormous and complex initiative, and one of the most ambitious tree-planting endeavours in the world. We believe it will pay dividends over generations, well beyond 2050. We are going to start by planting trees in urban areas across Canada this spring.

I will wrap up by saying that this pandemic has been tough, and often frightening for our youngest children and vulnerable seniors, but it has also helped us see the forest through the trees, to recognize what we value, including our natural world, its ability to restore our planet's health and its role in helping us rebuild our economy the right way, with sustainable jobs and vibrant communities.

I urge all members to support Bill C-14 so we can make this happen.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who is always a joy to work with on the natural resources committee, but I am going to question his virtuousness around planting trees. We have an industry that plants 600 million trees per year. It regularly plants three trees for every tree it cuts down. The cycle of carbon in a tree, of course, is such that the tree actually absorbs carbon in its mid-life. It is not going to be absorbing much carbon when it is a seedling. The member seems to think that it is going to happen in the next 10 years, but it is actually not going to happen until at least 2030 when the effects of greenhouse gas reductions are going to be well upon us.

This virtue signalling in doing something with planting trees is thus a bit of a non-starter if we look at its actual effects on reducing carbon. We need to do more than this. I am going to challenge my colleague's virtuousness because he has not costed this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government has not costed this correctly. The government is only thinking of this plan as it goes along.

Could the member please explain further how this would actually result in carbon reduction in the next 10 years?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague at the natural resources committee.

I would certainly beg to differ with the conclusions of my colleague that planting two billion trees will not help the environment. Our goal is to be at net-zero emissions by 2050, so the fact that the member is stating that we should not even start is absurd, given that we need to start somewhere. This is engaging communities, families and the provinces to get this done.

I must say that in my region of Sudbury, where the landscape was devastated 40 years ago, we have planted 14 million trees over the past 30 years, which has done much for our community. The member says that wanting to plant trees is virtuous and is virtue signalling. Again, I bet to differ.

On another note that my colleague raised, with respect to the PBO, if he reads the report, he will see that the PBO says that basically it is hard to make these estimates and that they might be off, but that this is the basic estimate. That said, a lot of organizations across Canada have reached out to me and said that the PBO report, in its calculations, is quite wrong. The calculations are based on Ontario at the cost of three dollars per tree to be planted, whereas most of the ones I have heard about cost less than a dollar a tree to be planted.

Let us stick with the facts. This program is good for Canada, it is good for families and it is good for everyone.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather pleased that the parliamentary secretary was able to finish his speech. It really resonated with me when he spoke about the fight against climate change earlier.

I hope that my colleague was able to hear me earlier when I spoke about how the Department of Environment and Climate Change granted exemptions to two American giants that have a technology they are ready to put on the market. They were granted exemptions for economic reasons, while a Quebec company that is part of a small group of suppliers of a particular product had to play the obedient student and suffer the consequences for doing so and trying to do what it could to help fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear my colleague from Drummond's entire speech.

However, I can say that our strategy is to ensure that all SMEs can play a role and that they have the technology. We are here to support them. There is funding for that. Over the past six years, we have even increased our contribution to several funds to support these businesses and create this innovation, which will allow us to meet not only our Paris targets, but also those related to achieving net-zero by 2050.

I would be pleased to talk with the hon. member for Drummond to see how we might provide our support. We could at least have a discussion about that business in his riding.

We see a lot of innovation in Quebec, but also across Canada. Clearly we need to continue to support these technologies and these innovative entrepreneurs who create these opportunities, not to mention support this green technology that will also create jobs and wealth in Canada.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start with a special tribute once again.

We have been talking about this for a long time, as we have been in the midst of a pandemic for a year. I want to pay tribute to health care workers, especially people working in hospitals, the nurses, orderlies, doctors and so on. We see them on the news, we see the images and reports. This is a matter of mental health as well, given all the stress and anxiety people feel. These people are on the front lines, they are right there, and I would say they are on the front lines of the war we are waging.

Our job is to plan so that they have the tools to do their job. Unfortunately, that is not enough. That is one of the problems. For the past year, the Bloc Québécois has tirelessly asked for health transfers. The federal government has spent money during the pandemic, but had it responded to the provincial government's call for increased health transfers over the years, we would not have gone through what we have gone through. We would not have gone through this crisis in the way we did. That is a major problem.

All of the provincial premiers called for the federal government to increase health transfers, but the federal level did not do so. An increase in health transfers would have helped our people on the ground and our health care workers who are working day in and day out to protect us from this pandemic, but it did not happen. I want to pay tribute to all the health care workers who are there and to all those people. I sincerely thank them.

Today, I want to talk about the fact that we often hear people, especially government members, say that they are pleased to talk about the subject in question when they rise in the House. It is quite the opposite for me. I am not at all pleased, because the things that I am going to talk about next are major problems, particularly housing.

Housing is one of the most powerful indicators of poverty, and I am not pleased to have to say that we are not doing enough. The government is not doing enough, and we are not doing our job, which is to provide housing for people. For example, in the bill to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced by the Minister of Finance, the government announced the expansion of the rental construction financing initiative as a new measure.

That was already in the national housing strategy. It is not a bad thing, but it is mostly loans for the construction of housing units that, 80% of the time, are not affordable. When they are affordable, rent for these units can be as high as $2,000 in Montreal. I do not know who in Montreal can afford $2,000 in rent, but that is what this program has to offer. It can even go as high as $2,400 in Quebec City and Gatineau. That is not what I call affordable housing.

Quebec's approach is known for being more socially and community focused. I have talked to federal government colleagues who are involved in housing in Toronto and Vancouver. They recognize the Government of Quebec's social, community-focused approach, which enables people to find housing for less than 25% of their income. That is important, and it is called social housing. We want investments in social housing.

Housing is a provincial jurisdiction, as is health. We keep having to remind the federal government to mind its own business. Health is none of its business; housing is none of its business. These are provincial jurisdictions. All we are asking of the federal government is that it provide the funding so we can house people, especially given that we send half of our taxes to Ottawa. Quebec sends $50 billion to Ottawa. That is significant. It would be nice if the feds would toss something back our way so we can protect our citizens.

The Government of Canada announced the national housing strategy on November 22, 2017. It is a major strategy, and Ottawa put a lot of money into it. Since housing is a provincial jurisdiction, Quebec should have had its share of investments. However, that took three years of negotiations and agreements. Some funding was finally released last fall: a total of $3.8 billion, with $1.9 billion being provided by the federal government and $1.9 billion by the province. That money can help build between 2,000 and 4,000 housing units, but four times those numbers are needed.

During those three years, the Government of Quebec could not move forward with building social housing units. There was no money. This summer I went for a walk. There were tents along Notre-Dame Street. There were people experiencing homelessness, but it went beyond that. The crisis is, of course, difficult for the people with mental health and addiction issues who are traditionally associated with homelessness. It is very difficult for them.

However, the pandemic has created a new type of homelessness. People who were in precarious work situations and lived in shared housing were already on the precipice and the pandemic pushed them out onto the street. If the agreement had been signed in 2017, if the federal government had resolved this dispute with Quebec, these people might not have ended up on the street. We could have avoided what we saw on Notre-Dame Street. We could have housed our fellow Quebeckers. That is important. It is huge.

I would take it even further. Two weeks ago a homeless indigenous man died, likely from the cold, in a portable toilet just steps from a shelter he frequented. If the agreement had been signed a few years ago, this man would not have died. We could have built housing units for homeless indigenous people in downtown Montreal, which would have saved this man's life. This is having serious and often tragic repercussions, all because this agreement went three years without being signed. I cannot believe it. I repeat: Housing is one of the most powerful indicators of poverty, and the agreement went three years without being signed.

I cannot help but think that, if Quebec were independent, the issues related to health and housing would have been quickly resolved. We would be spending money where it is needed. We would be sure to house and care for our people. Independence is the magic solution for Quebeckers.

I want to give another example of a situation where Quebec would have been better off on its own. In the fall, the government implemented the rapid housing initiative, which is not a bad thing in and of itself. The federal government invested $1 billion to house our fellow citizens during the pandemic. That is good, except that Quebec got the short end of the stick once again. Only two cities in Quebec received a share of the first $500 million for big cities. Fifteen big cities in Canada were ranked by their homelessness needs. The government decided to give Toronto $200 million. That is huge.

Quebec represents 23% of Canada's population, yet it received only 12% of the first $500 million allocated under this initiative. That is completely unacceptable. The federal government allocated $56 million to Montreal and $8 million to Quebec City. There was nothing for Gatineau, Longueuil, Laval, Rouyn-Noranda, Jonquière or Gaspé, even though there are problems everywhere. We got the short end of the stick.

For the other $500-million stream, Quebec put its foot down. It decided that it would have control, which is logical and to be expected. Consequently, it was able to invest $116 million in projects, which is not bad. However, we need to invest more in housing. It is essential that we do so to help our fellow Quebeckers. It is still a serious issue in Quebec. There are 300,000 households considered to be in dire need of housing, and that is a significant number. In addition, these are pre-pandemic figures.

Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante said a few weeks ago that homelessness needs have doubled in Montreal. There used to be about 3,000 homeless people in Montreal, but there are now about 6,000. In Quebec, 80,000 households spend more than 80% of their income on housing. These are pre-pandemic figures. This is unacceptable.

Currently, 40,000 Quebec families, including 2,000 in Longueuil and 23,000 in Montreal, are on the waiting list for low-income housing. In short, there is a huge need. I am running out of time. We never have enough time to talk about the important things in this Parliament.

My message is this: we have invested in housing, but the needs are 10 times greater than what Quebec has invested in the past year. The government must therefore invest. We have to take care of our people and provide housing for them. Again, it is one of the biggest indicators of poverty. Having good housing helps a lot. We must provide housing for our people. We must take care of them.

[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, one thing I have learned, which has been reinforced by my constituents and Canadians from all regions of the country, is that there is an expectation that goes far beyond Ottawa just providing cash for health care. We can see that when people raise the issue of standards in long-term care and reinforce the need for pharmacare involvement. There seems to be a real tangible desire that we build back better on the health care file.

I wonder if my colleague recognizes that Canadians in all regions of the country expect the federal government to play more of a proactive role in the area of health care, given that it is such an important issue to all of us.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a provincial responsibility. We need to stop talking about it. I am not sure how else to say that.

If the fathers of Confederation had wanted it to be a federal responsibility, they would have said so in 1867. It would have been settled. Then, the federal government would have hired doctors, built hospitals and done preventive health, but no. All of that is under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has the expertise, and the provinces have the expertise. The Government of Quebec is the one looking after people. It is the expert. When folks in Ottawa try to take over, it does not work.

The federal government's job in this pandemic is to supply vaccines. As we can see, that is not working right now. In a report published in The Economist, an independent committee contradicts the Prime Minister's assertion that all Canadians will be vaccinated by the end of September, stating that it could take until the middle of 2022.

All we are asking the government to do is its job: supply vaccines.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague.

I found the content of his speech quite eloquent, particularly with regard to housing. I would like to ask him a question about that.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, just completed a study on indigenous housing. The need is absolutely desperate, and the testimony we heard expressed the same message to us all.

Funding definitely needs to be increased. What does my colleague think has to be done, particularly under the rapid housing initiative that was just adopted, to ensure that it meets the needs?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

Funding is obviously the key. The needs are there, and we know what they are. On the ground, people are ready. We are fortunate to have experts on the ground who are ready. We need to listen to them.

We have experts on issues related to domestic violence, seniors, and children with disabilities. This requires a special approach and special services that we have in Quebec. We have developed them over the years. This is recognized across Canada. The federal government just needs to fund them adequately.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the worst vacancy rate in Quebec is in Saint-Hyacinthe, with a rate of 0.3%.

Real estate is a very complex and speculative field and has been the source of economic crises in the past. Still, I would like to know how such a vacancy rate is possible and what has caused it.

How can a city that is so dynamic in many other respects have a vacancy rate of 0.3%?

What should I tell the groups and residents in my riding who are worried?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I do not know the answer for Saint-Hyacinthe specifically, but I do know that there are disparities across Canada.

For example, of the $500 million earmarked for the first stream of the rapid housing initiative, $200 million is going to Toronto. Obviously, rents are very expensive in Toronto, so the real estate market is very high. Low-income earners have an even harder time finding affordable housing in Toronto and Vancouver.

However, that is not our problem. In fact, we are sort of being penalized for the fact that Toronto and Vancouver cannot sort out their real estate markets. This means that the federal government provides more funding to those folks, who do not appear to be very good at looking after the most vulnerable. As the rest of Canada is not good at it, Quebec has developed an approach that works pretty well. The same is true in many areas; we would be better off if we were independent.