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.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those who follow the House will know that this morning we were supposed to be debating Bill C-14. We were hopeful, after many days of debate, that it would be allowed to come to a vote. The Conservatives, of course, are dragging their feet on that.

We had another very important piece of legislation, and I know it is important for all Canadians. In fact, the minister who just posed the question and has done a great deal of work on it is saying that we should discuss this legislation and get it to committee. He wants to be able to work with all members of all sides of the House, in recognizing how important it is that this legislation be dealt with. However, much like with Bill C-14, the Conservatives would appear to want to continue to play these destructive games, which are not healthy for Canadians. I—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member should maybe ask his colleague from Edmonton Centre, to whom I had posed a question asking whether he supports the current restrictions that are in place. His response to me was yes, so I believe that the Conservative Party does support it. If I am wrong, the Conservatives should probably so indicate.

To answer his innuendo in terms of why I might feel frustrated at times, it is because I feel very passionate about doing what I can to combat and fight the pandemic. I see, as we all do, the impact it is having on Canadian society and I see how important it is that the government be at least allowed to do some of the things it needs to do, such as pass Bill C-14.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes members of the Conservative Party feel a little uneasy when we get into the reality of why they play their games.

The Conservatives talk about the importance of the tourism and travel industry. That is why they brought it up. The reason we are debating this today is because apparently the Conservatives are concerned about that one industry. If they are concerned about that industry, Bill C-14 would go a long way to support it.

It is important for my colleagues across the way to understand the consequences of their most inappropriate behaviour when it comes to debate and the games on they play the floor of the House of Commons. They need to start shying away from some of the games and start focusing on what the government has been focused on since day one, and that is Canadians first and foremost.

On the government side, my colleagues and I get a little frustrated when we want to share with members the concerns we have for the many different industries in Canada. Today, this report focuses on travel and our tourism industry. We have been putting a lot of resources into that, hundreds of millions of dollars. We have not neglected this area.

I was talking about the aerospace industry just the other day. Our aerospace industry is so vitally important, and the amount of travel taking place today has significantly dropped. We all know that. It has an impact. I am concerned about the aerospace industry. I did not hear the members talking about the travel industry and the impact it is having on our aerospace industry. That should have also been tied in with this.

The reason I say that is when we look at it, what should we do? Should we do one industry at a time and debate that? This seems to be what the Conservatives want to do right now. Maybe we will forgo opposition days and some government days, and go through one industry at a time.

I am very concerned about the aerospace industry. Travel has gone down. I do not know to what degree the committee had that discussion about the aerospace industry and the impact on it.

I take great pride in the fact, and it has been said before, that an aircraft can be built in Quebec from the very start, from the nuts and bolts to a 100% completed aircraft. I am very proud of that fact.

Manitoba also has an aerospace industry. We all know Boeing is being affected by air travel. It is looking at ways in which we can support the travel industry. In fact, I met with some members of Unifor to talk about the aerospace industry and the impact that travel is having on it.

Manitoba has a wonderful aerospace industry. So do the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Those provinces probably have 98% of the entire aerospace industry in the country. Do not quote me on that, but I do not think I would be too far off. That is a direct link to travel.

I understand how important it is, but I do not think I would favour of having a day for every subject matter in regard to the coronavirus. There is not enough days in the next couple of months to cover them all.

Why would the Conservatives bring this up at this point? There is a government agenda. The government is moving forward. During the debate, both speakers were critical of the government because the Liberals did not get rapid tests out fast enough. Members will recall that the critic for health jumped up and down, yelling that the sky was falling and asking where the rapid tests were.

Over 20 million rapid tests have now been provided by the federal government, and a very small percentage of them have actually been utilized. It sure sounded good back then when members of the Conservative Party tried to get people to lose confidence in the government. That seemed to be their priority, not the travellers.

To what degree did the committee look at that issue? We have over 20 million rapid tests, and they have not been utilized anywhere near the degree they could be utilized. Has there been representation coming from the tourism industries, whether restauranteurs or travellers, in regard to it? Are the Conservatives trying to blame the provinces for not doing their jobs in terms of the circulation of rapid tests? Is that what the Conservatives are trying to say?

They raised the issue. I could not believe the ridicule and so-called outrage coming particularly from the critic of health for the Conservative Party. Of course, members, in talking about this motion, talked about the vaccine, and they were critical of the government about as well. They said that it was going to be the saviour.

This government, through its process and procurements, has put Canada in a fantastic position. We committed weeks ago to six million vaccines by the end of March and well over 20 million by the time we get into June. We are on track to reach that. There have been some bumps here and there and some things we have had to overcome. Some of them are an act of God through a snowstorm to restructuring or retooling of a company overseas.

The Conservatives have one agenda and that agenda is not to provide the type of official opposition that I believe Canadians truly want them to be. What do members think Canadians would say with respect to the debate we are having today and the games being played on the floor of the House of Commons? It is very frustrating.

I would like to be talking about the travel industry and the tourism industry once Bill C-14 gets back from committee. We should allow Canadians, committees and parliamentarians of all political stripes to have that debate about this industry and other industries at the committee stage. We can look at ways to improve it.

The previous speaker made reference to us having some programs. That is right. From day one, this government has been focused on ensuring we were there for small businesses in a real way. Those small businesses, in good part, are doing that much better as a result of the programs we put in place, and he cited some of them. A Conservative member previously made reference to the emergency wage subsidy program. It is a fantastic program.

Late last year, the Prime Minister and I had a discussion via Zoom with members from the folk arts council, which puts on Folklorama in Winnipeg. Close to 200,000 people participate in that event. Members can google it if they like. It is a major tourist attraction for the province of Manitoba.

We had representatives from the folk arts and others were involved in that discussion. They talked about how grateful they were for the wage subsidy program. A couple even indicated that if it were not for the wage subsidy program, the folk arts council might have had to close its doors. Think of the impact that would have had on my province. This institution has been around for over 50 years. There are literally thousands of volunteers. There are 200,000 plus people who will visit the different pavilions. Historically, it has been such a wonderful organization that provides jobs and economic boosts, whether to hotels, artists, and the like. It is very important to our tourism industry. It benefited from the emergency wage subsidy program. Members can talk about tourism and that program under Bill C-14 if they so choose.

However, the Prime Minister also made reference to the emergency business account, another outstanding program. I do not know if he made reference to the emergency rent subsidy program. What about the business credit availability program? One could even talk about the regional relief and recovery funds. All these programs virtually started from nothing.

The Prime Minister and this government are focused on the pandemic and working with Canadians, provinces and territories wherever we can to protect these industries. We worked with some of the best civil servants in the world and because of that, we were able to get these programs in place to protect the types of industries that are absolutely critical to our future. Because we were so successful at doing that, we are in a much better position to build back better. That applies to our travel industry. Our travel and tourism industry, like other industries we have, has benefited dramatically and positively from these programs.

We have admitted that we can do better, that there are opportunities to improve. That is one of the reasons for Bill C-14. The Conservatives continue to play this stupid game of filibustering, preventing the bill from going to committee, because they are not concerned. They might say they are, but saying it is different than doing it. It is time to have less talk and more action from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need a higher—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I heard the member specifically talking about how Bill C-14 addressed the issue of the tourism industry, so he has completely been on point. Although I do not believe I need to defend this particular member, as he does a great job of doing that himself, I thought I would throw that in for your consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hearing a lot about Bill C-14 and Bill C-19. I am just wondering if the Speaker could remind the member of the matter of relevance?

[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, it is interesting, and somewhat frustrating and a little disappointing, to watch the Conservatives play their political games on the floor of the House of Commons. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Conservative Party of Canada is completely out of touch with what Canadians want their political leaders to be talking about and actually doing.

I do not say that lightly. I genuinely believe that the direction the current leadership of the Conservative Party and its House leadership team are taking, as well as the discussions and debates on the floor, do a disservice to Canadians.

I will expand on why it is we have a report on travel and tourism. I listened very carefully to the former speaker and the member for Edmonton Centre, who brought forward the motion on this concurrence to talk about travel and tourism in Canada. There was nothing said by either member, nothing at all, that could not have been said during debate on Bill C-14, for example.

There was nothing implying the urgency of having that debate today. When the member for Edmonton Centre presented his arguments to debate this, he expressed concerns in regard to all the restrictions. However, I asked him point-blank whether he supports the current restrictions that have been put in place by the government. His response was that yes, he does support them.

Where is the need to actually bring forward this report at this time? If the members were saying that this is such an important industry, and we should be talking about it, I would agree. It is an important industry. It is a very important industry for all Canadians, whether they are directly employed by it, indirectly employed by it or not even employed by it. Our tourism industry is of critical importance to our economy and to our society, in terms of how we ultimately evolve. However, if it were that important, they could have dealt with it when we were debating Bill C-14 earlier today.

They have opposition day motions, and they could do it at that time also. They could single out an industry and say that they are concerned about that industry and that they want to debate it all day, and ultimately it would come to a vote.

Members of the Conservative Party have been filibustering and doing whatever they can to play a destructive force in regard to Bill C-14, where there has been a great deal of talk about tourism and the tourism industry. There has been a great deal of discussion about that. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands pointed out the number of days we have been sitting for Bill C-14 versus what we would actually spend on a budget debate. As well, the Conservatives have given absolutely no indication. I asked earlier today when the Conservatives would see fit to pass Bill C-14, and there is no indication.

Now, we get this report that is so urgent that the House of Commons needs to have hours of debate on it. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and members of Parliament from the Conservative caucus believe that it is so very important.

For those who might be following the debate, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the industry, nothing at all. I think the Conservatives have factored in and brought in this report because they want to continue to filibuster and prevent debates from taking place. Interestingly enough, they will then criticize the government for not having debate. They will ask why we are not debating Bill C-14 more and why we are not bringing forward Bill C-19. This is not the first day on which we have tried to bring forward Bill C-19, which is a Canada Elections Act bill.

We look forward to getting that high sense of co-operation coming from all opposition members. They talk about the issue of vaccines in reference to this particular report, but vaccines apply to every aspect of our society, including issues being debated in many different forums.

What should we be debating today? We could have been debating this. Not necessarily the report, but why did members of the Conservative Party not talk about this more during the budget debate, or the mini budget debate, however one might want to refer to Bill C-14?

It has come to the extreme where the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, had to write a letter to the Conservative leader and say that Conservatives are dragging their feet on important legislation. That legislation will have a positive impact for our tourism industry. As members talk about the—

Carbon Pricing

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, our government is absolutely committed to supporting small businesses, and I would love to see members of the Conservative Party join us in that commitment. We disagree about a lot, but if we all believe we need to support small businesses, let us get behind Bill C-14. Dan Kelly was out there yesterday urging us all to pass this law. It would deliver concrete support. Let us do that.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member shares my concern for helping Canadian small businesses. While we continue to fight COVID, they do desperately need our support, and that is why I would like to ask the hon. member, and all of his Conservative colleagues, to join us in getting Bill C-14 passed.

In fact, Dan Kelly, the head of the CFIB, has called on all of us to get this done. He said that the CFIB urges all parties to ensure this support—

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I welcome that question because it gives me an opportunity to share something concrete that we can all do to help small businesses and workers, and that is pass Bill C-14. I would like to quote Dan Kelly, who said that this bill has some important measures for small business and urged all parties to ensure this support is passed quickly.

That is one thing we can all do to help Canada's workers and small businesses.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what the legislative agenda will be for the next few days.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-14, which would implement certain provisions of the economic statement. In the afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, Monday and Wednesday of next week, we will continue the debate on Bill C-19. On Tuesday, we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying law. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, February 25, will be an allotted day. On Friday that same week, we will begin second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms act.

I thank my colleague for his question.

Employment

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the very positive report we received today from the IMF, which says Canada's economy will grow by 4.4% this year.

With respect to Canadian workers, I agree with my hon. colleague that we have to support them, and we can do that by voting in favour of Bill C-14. We must do so because we need this legislation and this help.

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating the hon. member for Abbotsford on his recent appointment as his party's critic for finance. He and I worked together in our previous roles in trade, and I look forward to working with him in this new role.

Let me take this opportunity to encourage the hon. member and all members of his party to end their delaying tactics on Bill C-14, to wrap debate at this stage and to move this legislation, which is really important in our fight against COVID, to the finance committee so it can do its work.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18, shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I also want to thank all the parliamentary leaders for their collaboration in developing a hybrid Parliament that can operate safely. I also want to thank everyone, the Speaker and his team, and everyone else who makes it possible for us to get together and debate.

As for my colleague's question, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debate on Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at second reading.

On Monday, we will have a day of debate on the Standing Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 51. This debate must take place between the 60th and 90th sitting days of a Parliament. We are in that period now, and the debate will take place on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

On Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-19, which provides temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of COVID-19.

Finally, next Thursday, February 4, shall be an allotted day.

Criminal Code

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a matter today of life and death. This is not an easy topic for anyone to think or talk about. I cannot imagine how much harder it is for people who find themselves in a position where they are faced with a choice between the two. It is a choice that directly affects suffering individuals. Each of their loved ones will also be affected. What makes it even more complicated and difficult is that it involves people having vulnerable moments and often, for many reasons, they were already disadvantaged members of our communities.

How we treat our most vulnerable neighbours reflects back on our personal and social character. It makes all the difference if someone who is struggling receives support to have a fulfilling and meaningful life, or if they are mistreated and neglected. It also gives the rest of us a good or bad example to follow in how we should treat each other. We have to consider all of this when it comes to Bill C-7. There are way too many problems with it, but for now I want to step back and focus on the heart of this issue.

Many brave and passionate voices from the disability community have stepped forward to call out the dangers of stigma and discrimination in the government's bill. One of those voices is Roger Foley's. He was born with a severe neurodegenerative disease and his condition got worse. He was denied the necessary supports for continuing to live at home. He has been speaking out about his troubling experiences while he is in hospital. According to him, the health care system has not provided him with any assisted home care team of his choosing. Instead, among other things, he has been offered the option of assisted suicide. From his hospital bed in London, Ontario, he told the justice committee his story and further said:

What is happening to vulnerable persons in Canada is so wrong. Assisted dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live.

Speaking from his experience living with a terminal illness, he had been calling for assisted life before he should ever have had to consider assisted death. The idea that the opposite could be true here in Canada should be unsettling for all of us. There is definitely a problem for the population with disabilities, in terms of aggravating stigma and discrimination towards them. Other people are at risk too.

If someone is thinking of ending their life, we know that it is most often related to mental health challenges or their emotional and social needs. Recently we heard the story of the late Nancy Russell, who was a senior living in long-term care during the COVID lockdown. She maintained an engaging and outgoing life. During the first wave, the usual activities she enjoyed were restricted. At one point, she was confined to her room for two weeks. Her family noticed an unmistakable decline in her life from the first wave. Her daughter was quoted in the media as recalling that:

It was contact with people that was like food to her, it was like oxygen. She would be just tired all the time because she was under-stimulated.

When news of a second wave came, along with the possibility of another lockdown, Nancy decided to apply for MAID. She was approved for it and died this past October. Her decision, within the larger issue of our response to COVID, is a separate discussion, but her daughter's words are important for us to consider in this different context. When deprived of our human needs, it is easy for someone to consider such an option. On the other hand, whenever these needs are met, it can have a remarkable effect.

I also want to talk about Harold, who passed away this summer. His daughter reached out to share with me the story of what happened near the end of his life when his wife, Barb, was visiting him. I will once again quote: “A COVID-19 restriction allowed window visits only. Because of being hearing impaired, he could see his wife Barb through the glass, but could not hear her. At times, staff were available to repeat Barb's words but not usually. Three weeks ago, Harold's life declined. Barb was informed she could come inside the facility to visit, provided she followed their protocols: masks, gloves, handwashing; only visit within his private room, etc. These preventative measures seemed reasonable. These visits continued for three days and each day Harold's health improved.”

She also included this reflection in her message, “Face-to-face physical and emotional contact directly influenced Harold's well-being, and now Barb is left with the lingering remorse that she was not allowed to hold her husband's hand as he breathed his last breath. It is well known that face-to-face human connection fuels wellness and, as end of life naturally draws near, the end for togetherness is just as real.”

She makes a good observation about the power of social and physical connection. Whether we are dealing with the case of Roger Foley's physical condition or emotional and relational suffering, we have to make sure that we do not misidentify any cries for help when somebody asks to die.

On a similar point, I want to make sure we consider the great potential for struggling Canadians to not find the help they might desperately need. For the justice committee study on Bill C-7, physicians, together with vulnerable Canadians, submitted a statement signed by doctors from every province. As of today, over 1,000 signatures are on that document. They explained the problem this way:

The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression and guilt for requiring care—emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time. The care and encouragement shown by physicians may be the most powerful force in overcoming despair and providing hope. Unfortunately, patients can no longer unconditionally trust their medical professional to advocate for their life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable.

The lack of available alternatives and support could only make it more difficult. The same statement notes the following:

We live in a country where the wait time to see a psychiatrist in certain areas is 4-8 times longer than the 90-day waiting period proposed in the bill for those whose natural death is not considered “reasonably foreseeable”, and where 70% of citizens nearing the end of life still have no access to basic palliative care services. Yet MAID has been deemed an essential service under the Canada Health Act and palliative care has not. This bill creates the conditions for cheap and easy death through euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Without addressing the root causes of suffering or actually providing someone with different options, it is impossible for a real choice to be made.

Finally, I share the concerns of advocates for people with disabilities and for other causes, that this bill would help to normalize suicide in situations similar to the stories I have shared and more generally.

In 2020 and beyond, there is a real risk for an increase of suicidal thinking. This year has pushed many to the brink of despair. Now is the time for us to live up to our international reputation as a nation of compassion and caring. We should offer those who are struggling a helping hand, not a cold shoulder of indifference.

In my province of Saskatchewan, in particular, there is a suicide crisis in parts of the indigenous community. I know that many indigenous leaders and communities have raised this concern in regard to the expansion of assisted suicide. In 2016, during the last debate in Parliament to legalize assisted suicide for the first time, the former Liberal member for Winnipeg Centre, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, spoke about the impacts that he believed this would have on indigenous communities.

One of the overarching themes from his speech was that by allowing suicide to become a way out of suffering, we are encouraging a spirit of death in indigenous communities. Rather than telling indigenous peoples that if they are suffering their lives are no longer of value, we should first improve the conditions of their lives and help them carry their burdens.

It is hard to know where to begin with fixing the government's plan for assisted suicide. Bill C-7 rapidly expands the framework of MAID, at a rate never seen before. In this effort, the government has ignored its own framework set in Bill C-14 and the advice of hundreds, and even thousands, of medical professionals.

Where is the expansion of palliative care and other support? How long before we go even further in offering assisted death without first better providing people assisted life?