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

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. This is where the difference in philosophy between the two parties could not be more clear. We want Canadians to—

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

We will have to leave it at that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-14. This is a baby budget or the fiscal update. It is not a full budget. We are in unprecedented times in that the country has been without a budget for almost 1,000 days, maybe more now.

The government will tell us that we are in unprecedented times, given COVID, and that is true. Nonetheless, during the Second World War, we still managed to have budgets and we still managed to have this place operate, holding the government to account, to give a reference for where all the money was being spent.

Bill C-14 would raise the debt ceiling. We are now a country with over a trillion dollars of debt, and the government is running out of room to take on more debt. The government has to come to Parliament and ask it to authorize a larger debt.

It is very interesting that there is no projection about where the debt is going. We are over a trillion dollars already. It is anticipated that the deficit will continue, that we are spending way more money than we are taking in as a country. It is anticipated that over the next number of years that deficit will continue.

What is fascinating about the request to raise the debt ceiling is that even given the exorbitantly high, unprecedented debt that we are taking on today, and the deficit that we have this year, and last year, given the trends, one would expect that once we get used to living with COVID and we get our economy opened up again that this deficit would start to go down over time. Three to five years out, we would expect that we would be reducing our deficit, not our debt, but our deficit. The debt cap that the Liberals are asking for is several hundreds of billions of dollars more than what is projected out, say, five years, and that is interesting.

Why do the Liberals need a slush fund? Why are the Liberals asking for much more room in the debt ceiling than they need? That is the big question I have with Bill C-14.

The Liberals always say that they are taking care of Canadians by spending all this money. That is true; they are spending a lot of money. However, the question is this. Are we getting a Rolls Royce for all that money or are we getting a K-car? If they are spending a lot of money and getting nothing in return, then they are wasting money. If they are spending a lot of money but getting more value than that money being spent, good on them. That is what we want to see.

The trouble is that we have spent billions and billions of dollars and we have seen no economy reopening. No vaccines are showing up. Thousands of business across the country are going bankrupt. There is no end in sight.

We are seeing the largest debt and deficit in Canadian history, unprecedented debt levels, yet there is no end in sight as to when the COVID pandemic will come to an end.

I read in the newspaper this morning that the United States was vaccinating, per day, more people than Canada had vaccinated in its entirety.

We might hear people saying that they are doing their best. However, we do not even have a budget to compare that to. We do not have a projection. When people buy a new car, they look at the market, they look at what they need in a car, the options they want, the colour they want. Then they look at their bank account to see if they have enough money for that car or they have a little more money to get that screen in the car.

If they then find out that the car they want, say a nice Dodge Challenger, is $87,000 but then they go into the marketplace and find one for $65,000, which is a lot of money for a car, it is still $20,000 less than what they thought they would spend. Therefore, it is a good deal. However, if they spend $100,000 on their new Dodge Challenger and it turns out the car is in writeoff status and cannot be insured, then they have a problem. They have spent more money than they needed to and have a car that does not work.

When it comes to the vaccines, Canada is at the back of the line. Not only are we at the back of the line, we spent all this money, unprecedented levels of debt, and we are not even in the line. We are at the food bank. We spent the money and did not get anything.

I am not sure if members know this, but essentially all manufacturers of the vaccines take a percentage of the vaccines they produce and put it with a not-for-profit organization to help out the rest of the world that is unable to afford these vaccines, much the same way a food bank works. Folks who can will donate food to the food banks and those who cannot purchase food can go to that food bank. This way everybody gets food.

We are at a point in time where we have spent all our money, have received nothing and are now raiding the food bank, not because we do not have enough money but we have spent our money foolishly. Now we have to go to the food bank of vaccines to get vaccines.

Last, on vaccines, the government brags endlessly about the suite of vaccines it has bought. That is like telling everybody how many fire departments we have contracted to come fight a fire in our house. We tell our wives not to worry because we have contracted 75 fire departments, which will take fours hours to show up, when, in reality, only one fire department five minutes away would be helpful. By the time those fire departments show up the house will have burned down.

This is what we are talking about with this suite of vaccines about which the government keeps bragging. It is amazing how we have the largest suite, the largest portfolio of vaccines of any country in the world, which is really great. However, if they cannot be delivered in a timely manner, what is the point? When one's house in on fire, one needs the fire department there a minute ago, not four hours from now. It does not matter how many fire departments have been contracted to come to the rescue, if they are four hours away, the house has burned down before they show up.

We spent a lot of money and the government is asking us to raise the debt ceiling with no real rationale as to why it has to be as high as it is. I could see it if it were to match general projections, but why is it significantly higher than it needs to be? We have seen how we have raided the vaccine food bank when we are a wealthy country and have spent unprecedented amounts of money. We may have a Rolls Royce for all the money we spent, but it is a 1991, not a 2021. While 1991 may be the best year, I was looking for the 2021 edition of the Rolls Royce, not a K-car, not the 1991.

Last, there is no doubt that a large suite of vaccines is great, but a timely delivery of those vaccines is as important as how many vaccines we have and, in some cases, maybe more important.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this bill being a “baby budget”, and he is absolutely right. This is what we could consider this bill to be. However, is he aware that a regular full-scale budget requires five days of debate in the House? Meanwhile, we are the on the seventh day of debate on this baby budget. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that the Conservatives will talk about everything, including cars from 1991, to hold the House up from passing the bill.

However, I will put that aside and address the member's argument about the return on investment. I do not blame him. The return on investment in society can only, from Conservative eyes, be measured through economics. He did not mention that, yes, we might have a high unemployment rate in the G7, but we also have among the lowest death rate per capita in the G7. Does he not think that investing in Canadians should also result in other changes than just pure economic changes in our economy, such as a lower death rate?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Chair, I said nothing about return on investment. In fact, I was looking for value for money.

After one purchases a car and then drives it for a long time, there is zero return on that investment other than having had a car. I was saying that we have to line up what our expectations are and see if we are meeting those expectations.

At this point, the fact is that we do not have a budget, we do not have a template and we do not have a plan against which we can measure to see if we are spending money in a valuable manner.

The House resumed from February 22 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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has three minutes remaining for questions and comments.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask a question of my friend from northern Alberta. Could he share a little about the specific economic challenges that are being faced in his riding? I know it is probably similar to the challenges in my riding, maybe a little different, but we are seeing a confluence of factors related to the government's anti-energy policies and factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

These are at least two storms that businesses in our province in particular are facing simultaneously. What is the member hearing about these two issues in his riding? I am interested particularly in the recovery. We know at some point that the situation with COVID-19 will be brought to an end, but it will be hard to have a recovery if the government's anti-energy policies continue even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise the example of the Loon River Cree first nation in northern Alberta, which is about a five-and-a-half-hour drive north of Edmonton. This first nation has significant business interests in construction and forestry. Essentially, they build roads. Since the downturn in oil prices, the need to build oil field roads is down significantly.

Many of the people who used to work at this construction company are no longer working, so the revenue for the band is down significantly, but the expenses are up, given that they are now dealing with the COVID crisis. They have a checkpoint at the end of the road, so visitors coming in are screened at the entrance to the community. All of these things have added costs for the administration of the community and—

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

We have time for one question from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could explain, on behalf of the Conservative Party, why, at a time when we are experiencing the pandemic, the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive force in the House by not allowing this important piece of legislation to pass.

Conservatives continue to debate it indefinitely, and there is so much within the legislation that would help small businesses and other Canadians. Why are they doing this?

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

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has 15 seconds to reply.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Liberals have been debating this as much as anyone. I believe they have had over 22 speakers to the bill to this point.

Conservatives are concerned about the fact that we have rushed through legislation—

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

Order. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be adding my perspective to today's debate on Bill C-14. I am doing so virtually, but I am really looking forward to being back in the House of Commons in person. It works so much better for us.

I will be talking about Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures. Specifically, I will be talking about part 6, which authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund in respect of specified initiatives related to health.

My big fear is that we are heading for yet another Liberal Party sponsorship scandal. I am sure everyone remembers that scandal, when the Liberals used public money to fund various PR campaigns aimed at influencing Quebeckers.

Using taxpayers' money, the government signed huge contracts with ad agencies—$322 million worth, to be precise—without subjecting them to strict oversight.

The situation and the objective are a little different now, but the Liberal government's actions seem familiar. Let me explain.

In the case of the sponsorship scandal, the Gomery commission found that there was a lack of oversight at the highest level of the public service. This allowed the Liberals to bypass the proper reporting relationship procedures. The Liberal government is doing the same thing today with respect to the COVID-19 crisis.

We have seen sole-source contracts awarded to the Prime Minister's friends, like the ones awarded to Frank Baylis and the Kielburger brothers from WE Charity. As Canadians will recall, these contracts were signed the same way as the ones involved in the sponsorship scandal: contracts signed hastily without following strict, established controls.

The Gomery commission also concluded that there was a veil of secrecy surrounding the administration of the sponsorship program and a lack of transparency in the contracting process. We are seeing the same thing today.

The Prime Minister is hiding everything he possibly can. He is hiding the details of contracts. He is hiding the details of products and services and, in many cases, he is hiding company names. We even found contracts where the dollar value was not given.

In one case in particular, a contract worth more than $180 million was awarded to company “M”. You heard that right, “M” as in mother.

On the list we also find company “B” with a $91 million contract, company “F” with a contract valued at more than $35 million, company “K” with a contract for more than $69 million. I think we are beginning to understand that the Liberals are playing hide it and keep it hidden. That is unbelievable.

Contracts worth billions of dollars were awarded between February 2020 and July 2020, and it is impossible to find out anything about them. We know nothing about them. Only the name of the product, but not the quantity, was disclosed. Therefore, we cannot calculate the unit price. This prevents us from determining if corruption played a part in the awarding of these contracts.

This kind of management or governance can only be qualified as being completely senseless or corrupt, as I have said. It is up to Canadians to decide.

In its inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, the Gomery commission also came to the conclusion that the sponsorship program lacked objectives, criteria and clear guidelines, so the sponsorships were used for purposes other than national unity or federal visibility.

We must acknowledge that the same thing is happening now with the COVID-19 procurement process. Clearly, the program's guidelines and criteria are not consistent.

For example, if the Prime Minister had trusted Canadian scientists, he could have ensured that taxpayers' money was invested in Canada's efforts to develop a vaccine and not in China's communist regime. The Liberal government decided to invest in China because it has no faith in our scientists and their expertise.

We were all shocked to hear the Minister of Public Services and Procurement downplay the quality of our Canadian scientists when she said, “The reality is that setting up new manufacturing of a vaccine requires expertise, and it requires resources from the supplier.”

In response, Gary Kobinger, the director of Université Laval's research centre on infectious diseases, said that her comments were “an insult to the last decade” and that the minister should “look to our universities and manufacturing facilities, because they are not being run by aliens.”

The Prime Minister often talks about Canadian expertise. However, when it comes time to take action, his lack of confidence in our institutions is clear. The Gomery commission also found that the sponsorship scandal involved political interference in the administration of the sponsorship program.

Looking at the programs put in place by the government to fight COVID-19, we certainly have a number of reasons to believe that the Liberals are once again playing the same old political games by giving gifts to their friends, such as Frank Baylis or the Kielburger brothers.

Finally, in addition to recommending limiting the powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet, the Gomery commission also called for the strengthening of the power of members of the House of Commons. The commission's central recommendation in that regard was designed to provide additional support for parliamentary committees. These committees are working groups of members who examine government decisions in key public policy areas, such as public finance, health care and social services. I can say that the committees did their work, but the Liberal ministers refused to answer questions. Their answers were vague and imprecise. After hours of asking questions in the House and committee and sending formal letters, we still do not know anything more about the contracts granted to deal with the health crisis.

The corruption in the Liberal Party was obvious during the sponsorship scandal and it is obvious again today when we consider the contracts that the Liberals are giving their friends. If what I am saying is not true, then I invite them to put all their cards on the table. We are talking here about tens of millions of dollars in public funds. The Prime Minister should be ashamed, but instead he just continues to hide the truth from Canadians.

As elected representatives, it is our duty to be transparent because every dollar spent comes from taxes paid by Canadians. The people of Canada should be able to trust their government and know that it is being transparent, not hiding anything and not trying to do anything corrupt. It is up to the Prime Minister to decide what to do.