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

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that it is a Liberal who believes that rigorous debate should not be allowed, and that just shows you how out of touch you are. I am sorry that—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think you are out of touch. The member said that you are out of touch. For the record, you are not out of touch; you are a fine Speaker. He should not be talking about you like that.

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

I thank the hon. member for defending my honour.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

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

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, and not to speak for my colleague, as often happens in this place, members in responding to one of their colleagues, through you, do direct their comments in that fashion. While I agree with the member for Kingston and the Islands that the Speaker is not out of touch, I expect that the member for Edmonton Griesbach was referring to the member for Kingston and the Islands being out of touch.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate I am not in Ottawa when I talk about Bill C-14 today. That is where my constituents expect all MPs to be when the House is sitting.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank my constituents in Souris—Moose Mountain. I thank them for having faith in me as their member of Parliament, a role I am proud to serve in each and every day. I also commend them for how they have been handling this past year and all the uncertainty that came with it. It has been inspiring to see communities come together in the face of adversity, and I encourage everyone to keep up the great work. They are making a difference.

With respect to today's debate, I am disappointed but not surprised at the state Canada finds itself in thanks to the government's uncontrolled spending and lack of action where it counts. As it stands, Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This places us just above Italy, a country that has been plagued with fiscal problems and instability for years now. This is not exactly a ranking to be proud of, yet the Liberals have not taken any concrete measures to improve Canada's standing in a meaningful way, despite their claims to the opposite.

In fact, under these Liberals, Canada has seen the slowest rate of economic growth in the G7. It is no mystery why competitiveness has fallen dramatically, as these go hand in hand. Without solid economic growth, there is no incentive to invest in Canada, and without those necessary investments, Canada becomes less and less competitive on the world stage.

Furthermore, the government has done little to nothing to encourage actual meaningful investment in the industries that need it now more than ever, such as the energy industry. One example of the government's failure in this regard is the recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline stood to benefit thousands of Canadian workers through the jobs it would create, not just temporarily during construction but also through the longer-term jobs associated with maintaining and operating this pipeline. In some cases, Keystone XL and the economic boost from it was bolstering entire communities. The economic spinoff would have created significant private sector industry tax dollars, which provide for many social programs.

The Prime Minister does not seem to realize the potential severe impacts of the trickle-down effect. When any key project like Keystone XL is cancelled, it immediately impacts the workers who are directly employed to work on it, such as construction crews or transportation companies. Many will need to consider moving elsewhere to find gainful employment, such as those working for service companies, restaurants, movie theatres, clothing stores, city, town and village staff and more. This means that many communities experience a mass exodus, something we continue to see the devastating impacts of.

I would like to take a brief time to talk about just two of the many of my constituents hugely affected by this situation. Jeff is a young oil field worker from the Moosomin area who lost his job in March with the usual slowdown from the spring breakup, and who went on EI and spent months trying to get support. However, Service Canada closed down and there was nobody to talk to in person. Nobody would answer his phone calls or respond with callbacks. He was desperate and close to broke.

Jeff searched high and low for work and found some with K+S north of Regina. He was then laid off. He went to Fort St. John and found work as an apprentice pipefitter, but he was laid off again before Christmas. He was rehired last month and finally, fingers crossed, last week, which is now closing in on a year, we managed to get him in contact with somebody and hopefully he will get some resolution to his EI issue. Bill C-14 has done nothing to assist him or many others like him.

Let me also introduce the House to Ryan, another hard worker who lost his job due to the government's lack of interest in assisting people who work in the energy sector. He is a young father of two, whose wife is expecting her third child. He is struggling to make ends meet in a community that has been severely impacted over the last five years by the loss of jobs. He searched and searched for work throughout this time, spending any savings he had to survive, paying power bills, heating bills, clothing bills and family bills, as they had a brand new baby. They were so desperate they had to start going to the food bank. I thank all those who donate and assist the food banks, specifically the Salvation Army and the Community Hamper Association of Estevan, including Char Seeman, Julie Bayda, Mel Pearson and Shelley Dayman, just to name a few.

Christmastime came to Ryan and his family and the limited food they got had a huge impact on the family's self-esteem and mental health. Ryan finally found some work last month, and the first thing he and his wife Stephanie did was take what extra cash they had to help by buying support meals for others who are just as desperate.

These Canadians do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want jobs. In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, communities like Estevan, Weyburn, Moosomin and Coronach were hit hard. We saw first-hand what happens when a key industry is reduced to a fraction of what it once was.

This pandemic has compounded the problems. Businesses closed left, right and centre, and not just those connected to the energy industry. Restaurants, retail stores, supply companies, auto garages, etc., were forced to close their doors because the customers were simply not there. Families had to uproot from the towns and cities and, most importantly, the people they knew and loved, because they had no way to pay the bills.

When the federal government, specifically the Prime Minister, failed to advocate for the continuation of projects like Keystone XL, it was tantamount to telling everybody affected, the energy workers, that the government does not care about them. It is not just Keystone XL; Keystone is just one high-profile issue. The energy industry in general has suffered from a lack of support and advocacy by the current government.

As I stated before, Canada has dropped in its ranking of competitiveness, and part of that is certainly due to the lack of investment in our energy sector. Why would a private company see Canada as a stable place to invest when our Prime Minister regularly helps to stymie the network of development and large energy projects that would help boost our economy? This lack of leadership and support is pushing businesses away from Canada, and the Prime Minister does not care. It is clear that he cares more about the image of his party. As I am an MP for a riding that has seen the devastation that his apathy causes, I am truly disgusted. Perhaps the Prime Minister will wake up should Enbridge Line 5 be cancelled, but I am not counting on it.

I would like to go back to the numbers now, as I believe they paint an alarming picture of the situation Canada is currently facing. While we certainly understand that programs are needed to help Canadians get through the pandemic, it is concerning that there seems to be a plan to increase spending and yet no plan to recover our economy. This year, the deficit is projected to be over $380 billion, which will bring the national debt to a record-setting $1.1 trillion. We have now gone two years without a federal budget, and the bill we are debating today does not outline how we are going to dig ourselves out of this deep hole. It is both reckless and irresponsible.

When these alarmingly high numbers are coupled with a Prime Minister who does not aggressively advocate for Canada, whether in regard to our vaccine supply, the future of our much-needed energy projects or the entirety of the oil and gas industry, which accounts for over 10% of our country's economy, it paints a scary picture of our future. Even before COVID-19, we were worried that our children and grandchildren would be footing the bill for the current government's ludicrous spending, and now that seems to have become an inevitability. In fact, it will be our great-great-grandchildren will have to wait see a recovery from this.

In conclusion, my constituents want to be confident that their Prime Minister has a plan for them and for the recovery of this country's economy. Bill C-14 would do absolutely nothing to instill this confidence. If anything, all it shows is more money going out the door, without any kind of indication as to how we will rebuild. In a time of fear and uncertainty, the government owes it to Canadians to show real, committed leadership, but all the Prime Minister does is add to his laundry list of failures.

As for me, I will continue to fight for the great people of Souris—Moose Mountain, including the energy workers, the agricultural producers, the small business owners and everyone in between. Our country deserves much better than the current Liberal government has given over the last five years and it is time for a change.

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

Questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I was actually raising my hand for questions and comments, and I am speaking as well afterwards. May I ask a question, or did I miss the window for that?

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

Yes, the member may ask a question, of course.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from Saskatchewan and I am from Alberta; we have similar issues with the impact on energy workers. There is a lot of frustration with some of the earlier bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We know those bills predate the pandemic. However, when we are thinking about how the economy is going to recover post-pandemic, those bills are a big barrier to Canada's looking like an attractive investment destination.

Could the member speak further to some of that legislation and share his feedback on what could and should be done in response to that climate of Canada's not looking like a great place to invest with these bills in place, particularly in the context of our energy sector?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. Ultimately, we are seeing investment dollars leaving this country, left, right and centre. The money is leaving from the western part of the country, heading south or to other parts, because investors are seeking better places to invest. Why would they not?

If we want to talk about what is going on in Bill C-14, I would like to point to the Borrowing Authority Act that the bill is going to amend. The government seems very quiet about the fact the bill is going to increase the amount it can borrow to $1,831,000,000,000. That is sort of like when someone gets their Visa bill and they have to pay their limit, and all of a sudden they see at the top that Visa has increased the amount, without telling them.

I do not hear the government speaking at all about this amount, so that Canadians could truly see how much the government is actually trying to increase its spending.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I think the fall economic statement was full of intentions and promises to spend billions of dollars going forward, but it lacked a real plan or any concrete sense of direction for how the government planned to actually invest that money. That is deeply troubling, especially considering all it has failed to do in the past.

I would like to know if my colleague is concerned about that lack of a plan, that lack of a planning process, and all the ad hockery in the fall economic statement as it pertains to the future of the Canadian economy.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member makes a very good point, and that is the fact that the present Liberal government has done no planning whatsoever for the last five years.

A prime example is right here, on investments and getting people and businesses going in this country, but it is also evident in how the government has been doing with the rollout of vaccines and PPE. There was no planning. The government made a statement on a Friday, before the weekend, and then all of a sudden, without hearing any responses or having any idea of what is out there, it rolled it out without any type of plan for its impacts.

The government has not talked with the Conservatives at all on this aspect. It rolls things out on its own. Planning and being a team coach means talking to players. It means hearing from each and every one of them; then taking parts of what they say to help improve what is being done. It is not just running out helter-skelter without having an official plan and procedures. It is not A, Z, B, D; it is A, B, C, D.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, for the past weeks and months, the Liberals have been talking about a “team Canada” approach to COVID-19 and negotiating with the United States. That is just lip service though, because in practice, they are not really behaving like part of a team.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, that certainly is correct. As someone who has been involved in coaching hockey my entire life, the one thing we learned is that when we talk about team work, we talk about working with the team.

That would be someone who is actually working with the team, and the Liberal government has not made any effort to work with the team. It is purely acting as a coach who does not talk to—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-14 and pick up on many of the themes discussed by my colleague from Souris-Moose Mountain. I do not know nearly as much about sports as he does, so I probably will not be as well versed on those issues, but I certainly share a concern about the impact on our energy sector.

Right now the government is talking about its various proposals for government spending. In reality, the government is saying that it is not going to support the existence of jobs and will put in place policies that will likely kill jobs. However, it tells us not to worry; it will have some money afterward.

What I hear from Canadians over and over again is that they are interested in working. Their desire is to get back into employment and have the joy, satisfaction and pride that comes from earning income. They also understand that the government's long-term approach is not realistic. We cannot have fewer and fewer jobs with more and more government subsidy and expect this to be an economic plan that will give us the capacity to provide support to people in the long run.

We are debating Bill C-14, which lays out aspects of the government's fiscal agenda. Part of the bill is for correcting errors in previous bills. The government has put forward other bills and pushed hard to rush them through quickly, but they have had significant technical flaws or other flaws. They have had a big negative impact on individuals and businesses. We are carefully reviewing and understanding this legislation to make sure we do not create more errors in the process of the government correcting errors it has made in the past.

The Conservatives are supportive of providing essential support to people in the midst of very challenging circumstances. However, our major concern, as we look at the government's fiscal plan for the present and for the future, is that it does not have a plan for jobs, growth and getting Canadians back to work.

There is a discussion of providing various kinds of benefits without thinking about jobs and growth. However, the government misses the reality that if we do not have a plan for jobs and growth over the long term, inevitably we are going to run out of the fiscal capacity to provide Canadians with the support they need. We have to be growing the economy and creating wealth before we are in a position to redistribute it. That is where I want to focus my arguments today.

This is the frame through which I see questions of fiscal policy. The cost of government programs depends on two things. It depends, first, on how much those programs allocate to individuals who need them and, second, on how many people need them. If we have very generous unemployment benefits when a very small percentage of the population is unemployed, it is going to cost us less than if a larger percentage of the population is unemployed in the midst of lower benefits. It is not just a function of the size of benefits we are providing; it is a function of the level of need for those benefits, as well as the size of them.

Logically, then, if we notice enormous levels of government spending and runaway deficits, as we see right now, and we need to reduce government spending at some point, then there are two ways of doing that. One might be to reduce the amount of money allocated to individuals or as part of individual benefit programs. The second might be to strategically think about how we can reduce the need for government benefits. If we can find ways of increasing the employment rate, there will be less need for unemployment benefits and it will cost the government less even if it is providing sufficient benefits to help people in those situations. Similarly, we might say this with respect to criminal justice: If we can reduce the crime rate, we will need to spend less money on responding to crime.

If we look at the causes of the need for government response and can find ways of addressing the underlying need, then it costs government less and we have more fiscal capacity to provide resources to people in situations of significant need. I think we would all generally agree that reducing people's need for or reliance on government services is a much better route to go than simply reducing the availability of those services without taking into consideration how we can address the issue of people's real or perceived need for them.

This underlines the point that we should not be measuring the success, effectiveness or commitment of government in terms spending alone. We might have a government that is spending a lot of money on providing benefits to people but doing so in a way that is poorly targeted and does not address the underlying root causes of the need. It is therefore not there for those who are in a position to need support. On the other hand, we could imagine a situation where a government has very generous and targeted benefits in situations where people have need and at the same time is addressing root causes such that there is less need for government services. In the latter case, that government would be spending less money. It would be spending less money by having more targeted benefits and by thinking about the need for government services, not just about the magnitude of the services in place.

As we think about the current dynamic with COVID and the various economic challenges facing our country, it is important that we think about creating jobs and growth, reducing the need for government services, strengthening communities and strengthening the supports individuals face independent of government. We would have a greater capacity to focus the public resources we have on those who are not able to find assistance any other way. If we have a lower unemployment rate, it stands to reason that we can provide more, better, longer-term effective supports to those who are not employed. However, if we have a higher level of unemployment, our collective capacity to do that is somewhat reduced. Unfortunately, what we see right now from the government is the lack of a plan for jobs and growth. That is really what is going to get us moving.

There are many different ways we can think about what that plan could and should include. What we need to keep in mind is that a great deal of our jobs are coming, and will continue to come, from resource extraction and manufacturing. There are a variety of sectors in our economy that people are working in, but there are many people in my riding and across the country who are working in resource extraction and manufacturing. We need a government that appreciates the value of that work being done, one that does not live in some fantasy world where everybody is working in an office behind a computer. The hard work people do with their hands in resource extraction and manufacturing are the jobs of the present and future and require our protection and support.

What we see from the government is a piling on of regulation and red tape that nominally is often about the environment but is very ineffective at allowing us to reach our environmental objectives. We also see a sense of unwillingness to defend the rule of law in cases where natural resource development projects have been through an appropriate review process and have been signed off by affected communities, but there are a few people trying to physically blockade them. We have cases of end runs, where projects have gone through the whole process and people are trying to stop them, even if they meet the existing requirements. That undermines investor confidence in the Canadian economy.

In a conversation I had with an ambassador regarding the opportunities in Canadian energy development, the person said that, more and more, Canada is being seen as a country of political risk. People can do all the work and have all the technical pieces in place and the project can make sense and conform to regulations, but there is a risk that some political factors will come into play and the rug will be pulled out from under them. That kind of environment makes it very hard for investors to want to invest in Canada.

People try to make the argument in the House that resource extraction and manufacturing industries are industries of the past. On the contrary, these investments are being made in other parts of the world; we are just not seeing many of those investments happen to the same degree in Canada. When we see growth in energy sectors outside of Canada but not the same kind of investments being made in Canada, we see that the problem is political.

In conclusion, to be able to provide support to Canadians who are unemployed, we need to have more Canadians who are employed. That means respecting and supporting our resource extraction and manufacturing sectors. That means working to have reasonable regulations, not unpredictable, constantly changing red tape for people who want to pursue projects. That is what we need for jobs, growth and opportunities—