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

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the hon. member's very distinguished tie, his speaking at length about municipalities is near and dear to my heart. As a former city councillor, multiple times I heard the federal government make big announcements about supports to municipalities, but they would often come in a one-third, one-third, one-third funding agreement.

Would the hon. member agree that we ought to have a program in place, as he has identified, that would provide predictable, direct funding to municipalities so that it is not either held up by the province or shortchanged at the city level?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to say to my colleague is that I could have spent 10 minutes just talking about how business owners are sick of only having access to loans. They need subsidies and cash. If they want to be part of the recovery, they will need cash flow, because they are stretched very thin right now.

We are all familiar with the study from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that shows that many businesses are on the brink of bankruptcy. We need to get away from loan obligations and instead focus on subsidies.

As for the municipalities, all I can say is that this is a provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa has a responsibility to transfer this money to Quebec so that Quebec and its municipalities can look after themselves.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree with me that the federal government has an important role to play in Canada's economic recovery, including in Quebec, through economic development programs such as the CFDCs, which he mentioned, but also through the connecting Canadians and Canada summer jobs programs?

Does he agree with me that the federal government has an extremely important role to play, even in Quebec?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague, who I saw in my riding barely two years ago, when he was participating in an activity of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue conference of prefects.

Indeed, the federal government has a role to play because we pay half of our taxes to Ottawa. In my view, the share Quebec receives is totally insufficient. It is the Government of Quebec that is incurring expenditures related to the current pandemic. We are talking about a 35% increase in health transfers because health spending is carried out by Quebec.

The federal government's responsibility to help the provinces in the context of the pandemic would have been to simply close the borders. It is a responsibility that it has not taken and is still slow to take. The provinces are waiting for that to happen. Yesterday, Ontario decided to take its own initiative because it was tired of waiting for Ottawa to act.

I am not even talking about vaccines or other issues that are undermining our economy. The federal government must meet its responsibilities if it wants to ensure the development of the regions.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise virtually to debate Bill C-14, an act seeking to legislate elements of the Liberal government’s long-awaited fiscal update, which was announced last fall.

I would like to mention that it is my granddaughter Avery Chapman’s first birthday today, and I care very much about the Canada she is inheriting, as she goes from walking to running to embracing her future.

As proud Canadians, let us first consider where we are and how we got here. For the past five years, the Liberal government has opened Canada’s pocketbook, running up our national debt to historic levels. Despite revenues being at an all-time high because of the strong fiscal foundation left by the previous Conservative government, year after year the Liberals ran deficit after deficit. There were deficits of $19 billion in 2016, another $19 billion in 2017, $14 billion in 2018 and $26 billion in 2019.

Liberal campaign promises in 2015 of a balanced budget and a $1-billion surplus have been dropped entirely from the Trudeau Liberals’ vocabulary. The Liberals spent so freely—

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

I remind the hon. member to please not refer to the names of current members of Parliament.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

The Liberals spent so freely before the pandemic that instead of being prepared for the possibility of an economic downturn, and economies are always cyclical, the cupboards were bare long before the first case of COVID–19 was known.

The pandemic has demanded more spending, but it should also demand transparency and explanations as spending priorities are rolled out. Workable solutions that benefit the most needy and support the survival of Canadian small businesses, new and established, should be at the top of the list.

The Liberal government racked up a $381-billion deficit in 2020. This deficit equalled 17% of our GDP, which made for a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than we realized in World War I, the Great Depression or the great recession.

With the addition of this $381-billion deficit to our balance sheet, our national debt recently surpassed a tragic milestone, a debt of $1 trillion, which is a first for Canada. That is $1,000 billion for those counting. This all from the party whose leader famously stated, “The budget will balance itself.”

While these numbers may seem too big to comprehend, let me speak plainly. This is money that we, the taxpayers of Canada, collectively owe. It is debt that accrues interest each and every day. It is money that we have an obligation to repay, that our children will be on the hook for, and in all likelihood, that our children’s children, such as one-year-old Avery, will be paying off decades from now. Is this to be our legacy? We can and must do better.

What does all this debt really mean for Canadians? It is not just a number on a balance sheet somewhere. It means that Canadians could face higher taxes to pay down the debt and its interest, taxes that could further stifle the economy. It means the social supports and programs that many Canadians rely on could falter. It means that we could face another economic crisis with decreases in the value of homes, a declining stock market, loss of people’s savings, reduced pension values and the rise in unemployment lasting far longer than was necessary.

I hope members on both sides of the aisle recognize the human toll that another financial crisis would have on mental health, substance abuse, depression, domestic violence and homelessness. These are tragedies that are unfolding around us, which have already increased at alarming rates this past year. They are issues that my constituents and I feel deeply about, and that we are already studying at the justice committee, of which I am a member.

That takes me to where we are. Finally, at the end of 2020, after months of calls from our side of the House for a comprehensive budget to show Canadians where their tax dollars, and all this debt-financed spending, is being spent, the Liberals gave Canadians a “budget lite” and a “budget really lite”, which they called their fiscal update. That fiscal update included a proposed $25 billion in new spending measures and a $100-billion stimulus plan, but again, there were few details about how the money would be spent, or how and when it would be paid for.

The day after it was presented in the House of Commons, the deputy minister of finance, the highest-ranking bureaucrat in the government’s finance ministry, abruptly announced his resignation. We can add this to the growing list of high-profile resignations under the government, which now includes the following: Julie Payette, the former Governor General; Bill Morneau, the former minister of finance; Jane Philpott, the former president of the Treasury Board; the member for Vancouver Granville, who served as the minister of justice and attorney general; Michael Wernick, the former Clerk of the Privy Council; Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister; and the member for Mississauga—Malton, who served as the minister of innovation, science and industry.

To replace the deputy minister of finance, the Liberals appointed Michael Sabia, an architect behind the GST, which was introduced in the 1990s. That tax was later lowered by the Harper-led government, thanks to sound financial management. Does Mr. Sabia's appointment signal to Canadians that the Liberals plan to raise taxes? Will the government really start taxing the equity in Canadian home ownership, as is being widely reported? Only time will tell.

One thing I know for certain, as an MP and as the former minister of national revenue, is that the lack of a federal budget is simply unacceptable. The budget is not just a planning tool for the government. It is the means by which the government announces in detail to Canadians from coast to coast to coast what it plans to do with billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

According to the government's own website:

The Budget is a blueprint for how the Government wants to set the annual economic agenda for Canada. And it's the job of the Department of Finance to prepare it.

The last federal budget was presented on March 19, 2019. That was 686 days ago. So much for an annual budget. So much for promised transparency.

As for some of the specifics Canadians were given, the most troubling part of the bill before us is the amendment it proposes to the Borrowing Authority Act. This amendment seeks to increase the government's maximum borrowing authority from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion, a new maximum limit on the nation's credit card. This sets another record, as it is the biggest increase in borrowing authority ever sought in our nation's history. I ask members to let that sink in for a moment. It is more than in World War II or past global recessions.

At this point, why should Canadians trust the government? We have all seen the headlines, which include: “CRA admits ‘unclear’ CERB communications led to mistaken applications”; “CERB repayment frustration continues”; “More than $636M in CERB benefits paid to 300,000 teens aged 15 to 17, documents show”; “Troubled pandemic rent subsidy program expires today – and there’s no replacement ready”; “Exclusive golf course books $1 million surplus, aided by federal COVID-19 relief”; and “$150 million more to SNC-Lavalin.” Really? The SNC-Lavalin that is mired in scandal and ethical challenges?

Conservatives want to help Canadians make ends meet. They recognize that the virus has affected millions of Canadians in a variety of ways, my family included. I know far too many constituents who have been laid off in the hospitality sector, tourism industry and retail businesses. I have heard from countless South Surrey—White Rock business owners who are struggling to keep their doors open. Throughout the riding, our once-bustling restaurant and shopping scene, including many shops along our picturesque White Rock Pier, are enduring catastrophic drops in patronage and revenue, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our airline industry, which employs many in my riding, is hemorrhaging. Of course I am in favour of the emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy, and the emergency business account, but we need to ensure these programs are rolled out correctly, and that funds are timely, spent effectively, and spent in Canada to help Canadians.

We need to ensure that through these billions of dollars in spending, no Canadian is left behind. So far, that is not what we have seen. There are many new businesses in my community whose investments were all made before the pandemic hit that are not eligible for current subsidy programs because they opened their doors after March 2020. Who is looking out for them?

Given the astronomical size of our country’s debt, we really cannot afford to get this recovery wrong. We need to spend, but to spend responsibly. We need transparency and we need a true, comprehensive budget. More than anything, we need to get Canadians back to work and a clear road map to recovery.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind people that most of the Harper years we were in deficits. Although Liberals have spent the most time in government in Canadian history, the Conservatives built up the biggest debt. In fact, coming into this pandemic, Liberals had the best debt servicing costs to the size of the economy than any time in the last 100 years, including during all the Conservative governments.

The member talks about cutting expenditures, but members of her party, including herself at the end of the speech, asked for more expenditures for business. Which of the major expenditures that people and businesses really needed, which she mentioned she supported and her party supported, and that have led to the debt, does she disagree with?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not really listen to what I was saying, so I will repeat it. I said that I was in favour of helping Canadians, as my Conservative colleagues are. As he knows, we took a team Canada approach and supported many measures to help Canadians. What we do believe in is doing it responsibly and not giving flagrant amounts of money, huge amounts of money, to those who do not need it.

SNC-Lavalin's $150 million this past year is a good example of that. I take issue with the member talking about the former Conservative government and deficits without talking about the circumstances of those deficits, which was to slowly build out of a global recession, and which that government did successfully, leaving a surplus.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.

However, she paints a rather gloomy picture of the situation, compared to my colleague, who presented some innovative solutions. Does she think that the Quebec model my colleague presented could be replicated in the rest of Canada?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, actually, I am a great optimist. That is my personality. I really believe that Canada and Canadians will build their way out of our present situation through Canadian innovation and ingenuity, and through being responsible with spending and programs. We need to help, but we cannot do it without transparency. We certainly cannot do it without a proper budget and a proper plan. Right now, we do not see that from the Liberal government. I was commenting on the fact that the government had put before us its fiscal updates as opposed to budgets.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, a lot of Canadians are suffering right now. We have just seen the government bring in some very strict measures when it comes to people who have to travel abroad and come back, with figures as high as $2,000 to be spent on hotels.

As health critic for the New Democrats, I am very much in favour of strong measures to protect public health. However, I have been contacted by some constituents, some who are working class and of limited means, who have to do essential travel, perhaps for a death in the family or something similar. They find the $2,000 three-day bill to be quite high.

Would my hon. colleague share any thoughts or comments on whether there should be some form of relief for working class or low-income Canadians who might find the payment of a $2,000 hotel bill to be excessive?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague to be a very caring member of Parliament in high regard and of long standing.

This is where we should never have one-size-fits-all policies like this. We have to take into account specific circumstances. I agree that this seems like a huge bill for people who can ill afford it and who may have been put in that situation.

The government is not being consistent across our borders. In my own riding, we have the Peace Arch Park where people are being allowed to come from all across Canada and the United States to meet up with each other, because the Liberal government has not addressed the opening on the Washington state side.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14 on the economic statement, which is extremely important during COVID-19. The bill seeks to implement certain provisions of the November 30, 2020, economic statement and other measures.

I basically want to talk about three things. First, I will share our party's position on the measures for seniors. Second, I will speak about certain measures that are still letting some businesses fall through the cracks, and third, I will say a few words about the problems that this pandemic has created for women and about my desire to support a more feminist economy.

For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, the law already allows for the funding of the various health initiatives set out in the bill. That totals approximately $900 million, including an investment of over $500 million in long-term care. The safe restart agreement between Canada, Quebec and the provinces should absolutely be amended to include long-term care. In the economic statement, the government provided for an investment of up to $1 billion to create an infection prevention and control fund to help Quebec and the provinces protect people living in long-term care facilities.

What exactly is being done about long-term care?

I will quote the November 30 economic statement again:

...the Government of Canada is committing up to $1 billion for [an infection control fund] to help provinces and territories protect people in long-term care and support infection prevention and control. Funding will be contingent on a detailed spending plan, allocated on an equal per capita basis and conditional on provinces and territories demonstrating that investments have been made according to those spending plans.

Need I once again remind the House that Quebec and the provinces have extensive authority over health care pursuant to a number of provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867, including section 92.7, which gives Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals.

Moreover, all provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the direct delivery of most medical services. Clearly, therefore, Quebec and the provinces, not the federal government, have the experience and expertise to handle long-term care homes. Quebec and the provinces also pay for the vast majority of these services.

In 2014, the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated that 73% of the costs related to long-term care facilities in Canada were funded by provincial, territorial and municipal systems and organizations in Quebec and the provinces, while 23% of the costs were borne by residents or through their private insurance.

Any funding from the federal government with conditions of any kind is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. The federal government has only one role to play in health care, and that is funding. It does have the means to do more.

Ottawa's revenues, at 4.1%, are increasing faster than those of the provinces, at 3.5%, while health care spending in Quebec and the provinces is increasing at an annual rate of 5%. Remember, the federal government's share of health care is shrinking significantly every year.

In 2019 Quebec, the provinces and territories funded 40% of health care spending, while the Canadian government absorbed only 22%, according to Conference Board of Canada data. At the current growth rate, the federal share of health care funding will drop below 20% by 2026. That is unacceptable.

If the federal government is truly concerned about seniors then it needs to accede to the reasonable request made by the united front formed by Quebec and the other provinces and backed by the National Assembly of Quebec. Starting this year, not after the crisis, the government needs to bring its annual contribution to health care funding in Quebec and the provinces to 35% on an ongoing basis. In fact, and this is significant, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, or the FMSQ, also supports this request by Mr. Legault.

As for the possibility of bringing in national standards in long-term care facilities, let us not forget that the Canadian Armed Forces' report following their time in Quebec's long-term care facilities was very clear: Despite there being many standards and rules on contamination prevention and control, or on wearing protective equipment, they were not enough to stop the virus.

The big question has more to do with the capacity to adhere to the existing standards and rules and enforcing them. The primary reason these rules were more difficult to follow is just as clear: the labour shortage. Let us properly fund our health care system. It is not just the Bloc Québécois and I calling for that, but major seniors' organizations such as the FADOQ.

The army's report says, and I quote, “According to our observations, the critical need for CHSLDs is an improved level of staff with medical training.” The provinces and Quebec do not need federal standards for long-term care homes. They already have standards.

Quebec and the provinces need the means to properly care for seniors. The successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments need to stop withholding spending.

In addition, the federal government can and must ensure that we have an adequate supply of vaccines. Once seniors in long-term care homes and seniors residences are taken care of, seniors living alone need to get out of isolation. Even though part of the bill amends the Food and Drugs Act, the delays we have seen are increasing stress and frustration levels.

I remind members that since the beginning of the pandemic, seniors have been saying that the $300 cheque that seniors receiving old age security got in July and the $200 cheque sent to seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement have been woefully inadequate. The government needs to permanently increase old age security benefits by $110 a month, but this is not included in the economic measures.

Second, many people in the riding of Shefford work in the sectors most affected by the pandemic, those associated with tourism in general, such as hotels, restaurants and major cultural events. All these sectors are essential for the economic vitality of the riding. I am thinking of such well-known cultural institutions as the Granby international song festival, the Palace de Granby, the Maison de la culture de Waterloo, the Yvonne L. Bombardier Cultural Centre and the Maison de la culture de Racine, to name but a few.

We have a lot of questions about the terms of the highly affected sectors credit availability program, HASCAP. Why is it that almost two months after announcing this program, the Trudeau government is still unable to provide details on its terms?

Let us remember that, from the beginning of this pandemic, the Bloc Québécois has demonstrated how important it is to develop assistance programs tailored to each industry, since one-size-fits-all programs really do not work. On May 13, 2020, the Bloc Québécois was already unequivocally calling for targeted assistance for seasonal industries, particularly the tourism industry. Some of the programs that had already been rolled out, such as the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, were poorly designed for these sectors and turned out to be a real disaster.

We then suggested that a real assistance program to cover fixed costs be implemented. In the spring, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development even came to tell members of the Haute-Yamaska chamber of commerce that those sorts of measures were coming. Several months later, it is clear from talking to tourism operators that the measures announced so far are insufficient. Many concerns remain, particularly for Quebec's sugar shacks, a key symbol of our heritage. They are still wondering whether they will be able to benefit from the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

We must not forget that tourism is a vital industry for the regions of Quebec. More than 400,000 workers benefit from the tourism industry, which generates $15 billion for Quebec's economy. Two-thirds of those businesses are located outside the metropolitan regions of Quebec City and Montreal and employ fewer than 20 workers, making them crucial to keeping our communities alive. Tourism is one of the industries that was hit hardest by the pandemic, and stakeholders are still waiting for the federal government to show some more empathy.

In closing, I want to point out the importance of making an economic she-covery a priority because the pandemic has hit women harder than men. Some programs, like the Canada emergency business account, have been harder for women to access. Groups such as Femmessor told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women about the importance of developing programs that are a better fit for female entrepreneurs. I heard that again earlier this week from a Bank of Montreal representative who wants more programs to do a better job of taking female entrepreneurs' reality into account. Family tax credits are not going to help women. They need programs that will help them leverage their economic power and escape poverty. Helping mothers is good, but enabling them to achieve their goals is even better.

The women who own the store Orange coco la vie en vrac, for example, work incredibly hard but do not seem to qualify for any of the programs.

In conclusion, we are in dire need of measures for seniors, for the cultural tourism industry, for restaurants and for women, all of which have been hit harder than most by the pandemic, along with measures for a greener, fairer economic recovery. Let us make that happen.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on her very good speech. We appreciate the determination, devotion and passion that fuel her commitment to the well-being of seniors.

The pandemic has exposed the effects of the chronic underfunding of health care. Let us not forget that the Conservatives reduced the escalator from 6% to 3%, which did not cover the cost of the health care systems.

The Premier of Quebec described a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada and his provincial counterparts as a missed opportunity. The Prime Minister left immediately to announce that the government would increase health transfers in due course. However, we all know that now is the time to tell the provinces and Quebec how much leeway they have to get out of the pandemic.

What does my colleague think of this attitude, and why does she think the Prime Minister of Canada is turning a deaf ear?