Bill C-30 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing relieving measures in connection with COVID-19 in respect of the use by an employee of an employer-provided automobile for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years;
(b) limiting the benefit of the employee stock option deduction for employees of certain employers;
(c) providing an adjustment for payments or repayments of government assistance in determining capital cost allowance for certain zero-emission vehicles;
(d) expanding the scope of the foreign affiliate dumping rules to further their objectives;
(e) providing change in use rules for multi-unit residential properties;
(f) establishing rules for advanced life deferred annuities;
(g) providing for an option to deduct repaid emergency benefit amounts in the year of benefit receipt and clarifying the tax treatment of non-resident beneficiaries;
(h) removing the time limitation for a registered disability savings plan to remain registered after the cessation of a beneficiary’s eligibility for the disability tax credit and modifying grant and bond repayment obligations;
(i) increasing the basic personal amount for certain taxpayers;
(j) providing a temporary special reading of certain rules relating to the child care expense deduction and the disability supports deduction for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years;
(k) providing flow-through share issuers with temporary additional time to incur eligible expenses to be renounced to investors under their flow-through share agreements;
(l) applying the short taxation year rule to the accelerated investment incentive for resource expenditures;
(m) introducing the Canada Recovery Hiring Program refundable tax credit to support the post-pandemic recovery;
(n) amending the employee life and health trust rules to allow for the conversion of health and welfare trusts to employee life and health trusts;
(o) expanding access to the Canada Workers Benefit by revising the applicable eligibility thresholds for the 2021 and subsequent taxation years;
(p) amending the income tax measures providing support for Canadian journalism;
(q) clarifying the definition of shared-custody parent for the purposes of the Canada Child Benefit;
(r) revising the eligibility criteria, as well as the level of subsidization, under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS), extending the CEWS and the CERS until September 25, 2021, providing authority to enable the extension of these subsidies until November 30, 2021, and ensuring that the level of CEWS benefits for furloughed employees continues to align with the benefits provided through the Employment Insurance Act until August 28, 2021;
(s) preventing the use by mutual fund trusts of a method of allocating capital gains or income to their redeeming unitholders where the use of that method inappropriately defers tax or converts ordinary income into capital gains;
(t) extending the income tax deferral available for certain patronage dividends paid in shares by an agricultural cooperative corporation to payments made before 2026;
(u) limiting transfers of pensionable service into individual pension plans;
(v) establishing rules for variable payment life annuities;
(w) preventing listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code from qualifying as registered charities and providing for the suspension or revocation of a charity’s registration where it makes false statements for the purpose of maintaining registration;
(x) ensuring the appropriate interaction of transfer pricing rules and other rules in the Income Tax Act;
(y) preventing non-resident taxpayers from avoiding Canadian dividend withholding tax on compensation payments made under cross-border securities lending arrangements with respect to Canadian shares;
(z) allowing for the electronic delivery of requirements for information to banks and credit unions;
(aa) improving existing rules meant to prevent taxpayers from using derivative transactions to convert ordinary income into capital gains;
(bb) extending to a wider array of eligible automotive equipment and vehicles the 100% capital cost allowance write-off for business investments in certain zero-emission vehicles;
(cc) ensuring that the accelerated investment incentive for depreciable property applies properly in particular circumstances; and
(dd) providing rules for contributions to a specified multi-employer plan for older members.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the Income Tax Regulations and the Canada Disability Savings Regulations.
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) temporarily relieving supplies of certain face masks and face shields from the GST/HST;
(b) ensuring that non-resident vendors supplying digital products or services (including traditional services) to consumers in Canada be required to register for the GST/HST and to collect and remit the tax on their taxable supplies to consumers in Canada;
(c) requiring distribution platform operators and non-resident vendors to register under the normal GST/HST rules and to collect and remit the GST/HST in respect of certain supplies of goods shipped from a fulfillment warehouse or another place in Canada;
(d) applying the GST/HST on all supplies of short-term accommodation in Canada facilitated through a digital platform;
(e) expanding the eligibility for the GST rebate for new housing;
(f) expanding the definition of freight transportation service for the purposes of the GST/HST;
(g) extending the application of the drop-shipment rules for the purposes of the GST/HST;
(h) treating virtual currency as a financial instrument for the purposes of the GST/HST; and
(i) clarifying the GST/HST holding corporation rules and expanding those rules to holding partnerships and trusts.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the New Harmonized Value-added Tax System Regulations, No. 2.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures by increasing excise duty rates on tobacco products by $4.‍00 per carton of 200 cigarettes along with corresponding increases to the excise duty rates on other tobacco products.
Part 4 enacts an Act and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify the steps that an assessor must follow when they review a determination of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with respect to the payment of compensation to certain persons;
(b) clarify that the determination of whether or not persons are entitled to compensation is to be made in accordance with the regulations;
(c) prevent a person from taking certain actions in relation to certain agreements between the person and a federal member institution by reason only of a monetary default by that institution in the performance of obligations under those agreements if the default occurs in the period between the making of an order directing the conversion of that institution’s shares or liabilities and the occurrence of the conversion;
(d) require certain federal member institutions to ensure that certain provisions of that Act — or provisions that have substantially the same effect as those provisions — apply to certain eligible financial contracts, including those contracts that are subject to the laws of a foreign state;
(e) exempt eligible financial contracts between a federal member institution and certain entities, including Her Majesty in right of Canada, from a provision of that Act that prevents certain actions from being taken in relation to those contracts; and
(f) extend periods applicable to certain restructuring transactions for financial institutions.
It also amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to
(a) specify the steps that an assessor must follow when they review a determination of the Bank of Canada with respect to the payment of compensation to certain persons or entities; and
(b) clarify that systems or arrangements for the exchange of payment messages for the purpose of clearing or settlement of payment obligations may be overseen by the Bank of Canada as clearing and settlement systems.
Finally, it amends not-in-force provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, enacted by the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, so that, under certain circumstances, an error or omission that results in a failure to meet a requirement of the schedule to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act will not prevent a deposit from being considered a separate deposit.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to publish certain information about unclaimed amounts.
It also amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 with respect to the transfer of pension plan assets relating to the pension benefit credit of any person who cannot be located to, among other things,
(a) limit the circumstances in which such assets may be transferred and specify conditions for the transfer; and
(b) specify the effects of a transfer on any claims that may be made in respect of those assets.
Finally, it amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Bank Act to
(a) include amounts that are not in Canadian currency in the unclaimed amounts regime; and
(b) impose additional requirements on financial institutions in connection with their transfers of unclaimed amounts to the Bank of Canada and communications with the owners of those amounts.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 to exclude certain businesses from the application of a provision of the Bank Act that it enacts, which allows certain agreements that have been entered into with banks to be cancelled.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business to June 30, 2025.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to
(a) provide that the entities referred to in that Act are no longer required to disclose to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates them the fact that they do not have in their possession or control any property of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under that Act; and
(b) change the frequency with which those entities are required to disclose to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates them the fact that they have such property in their possession or control from once a month to once every three months.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to
(a) extend the application of Part 1 of that Act to include persons and entities engaged in the business of transporting currency or certain other financial instruments;
(b) provide that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre make assessments to be paid by persons or entities to which Part 1 applies, based on the amount of certain expenses incurred by the Centre, and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those assessments;
(c) amend the definitions of designated information to include certain information associated with virtual currency transactions and widely held or publicly traded trusts that the Centre can disclose to law enforcement or other governmental bodies;
(d) change the maximum penalties for summary conviction offences;
(e) expand the list of persons or entities that are not eligible for registration with the Centre; and
(f) make other technical amendments.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Retail Payment Activities Act, which establishes an oversight framework for retail payment activities. Among other things, that Act requires certain payment service providers to identify and mitigate operational risks, safeguard end-user funds and register with the Bank of Canada. That Act also provides the Minister of Finance with powers to address risks related to national security that could be posed by payment service providers. This Division also makes related amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Payment Card Networks Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to establish new requirements and grant new regulation-making powers to the Governor in Council with respect to negotiated contribution plans.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to allow First Nations that are borrowing members of the First Nations Finance Authority to assign their rights to certain revenues payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, for the purpose of securing financing for that Authority’s borrowing members.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount of a fiscal stabilization payment that may be made to a province and to make technical changes to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 12 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to Canada’s COVID-19 immunization plan.
Division 13 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to infrastructure and amends the heading of Part 9 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 authorizes amounts to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to a maximum total amount of $3,056,491,000, for annual payments to Newfoundland and Labrador in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Hibernia Dividend Backed Annuity Agreement.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make an additional fiscal equalization offset payment to Nova Scotia for the 2020–2021 fiscal year and to extend that Minister’s authority to make additional fiscal equalization offset payments to Nova Scotia until March 31, 2023.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to provide that decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on whether or not to allocate funding to expand access to telecommunications services in underserved areas are not subject to review under section 12 or 62 of that Act but are subject to review by the Commission on its own initiative. It also amends that Act to provide for the exchange of information within the federal government and with provincial governments for the purpose of coordinating financial support for access to telecommunications services in underserved areas.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that lines of credit are loans;
(b) set a limit on the liability of the Minister of Small Business and Tourism in respect of each lender for lines of credit;
(c) remove the restriction excluding not-for-profit businesses, charitable businesses and businesses having as their principal object the furtherance of a religious purpose as eligible borrowers;
(d) increase the maximum amount of all loans that may be made in relation to a borrower under that Act; and
(e) provide that lesser maximum loan amounts may be prescribed by regulation for loans other than lines of credit, lines of credit and prescribed classes of loans.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to change certain rules respecting the correction of declarations made under section 32.‍2 of that Act, the payment of interest due to Her Majesty and securities required under that Act, and to define the expression “sold for export to Canada” for the purposes of Part III of that Act.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act to require the concurrence of the Minister of Finance when the Minister designated for the purposes of section 16 of that Act appoints panellists and committee members and proposes the names of individuals for rosters under Chapter 10 of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends Part 5 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to make certain reforms to the Social Security Tribunal, including
(a) changing the criteria for granting leave to appeal and introducing a de novo model for appeals of decisions of the Income Security Section at the Appeal Division;
(b) giving the Governor in Council the authority to prescribe the circumstances in which hearings may be held in private; and
(c) giving the Chairperson of the Social Security Tribunal the authority to make rules of procedure governing appeals.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the definition of “previous contractor” in Part I of the Canada Labour Code in order to extend equal remuneration protection to employees who are covered by a collective agreement and who work for an employer that
(a) provides services at an airport to another employer in the air transportation industry; or
(b) provides services to another employer in another industry and at other locations that may be prescribed by regulation.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends Part III of the Canada Labour Code to establish a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour and to provide that if the minimum wage of a province or territory is higher than the federal minimum wage, the employer is to pay a minimum wage that is not less than that higher minimum wage. It also provides that, except in certain circumstances, the federal minimum wage per hour is to be adjusted upwards annually on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for Canada.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the provisions of the Canada Labour Code respecting leave related to the death or disappearance of a child in cases in which it is probable that the child died or disappeared as a result of a crime, in order to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum length of leave for a parent of a child who has disappeared from 52 weeks to 104 weeks;
(b) extend eligibility to parents of children who are 18 years of age or older but under 25 years of age; and
(c) limit the exception that applies in the case of a parent of a child who has died as a result of a crime if it is probable that the child was a party to the crime so that the exception applies only with respect to a child who is 14 years of age or older.
Division 24 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Employment and Social Development to make a one-time payment to Quebec for the purpose of offsetting some of the costs of aligning the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan with temporary measures set out in Part VIII.‍5 of the Employment Insurance Act.
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to provide that, if the Canadian Judicial Council recommends that a judge be removed from judicial office, the time counted towards the judge’s pension entitlements will be frozen and their pension contributions will be suspended, as of the day on which the recommendation is made. If the recommendation is rejected, the judge’s pension contributions will resume, the time counted towards their pension entitlement will include the suspension period and the judge will be required to make all the contributions that would have been required had the contributions never been suspended.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act to increase the number of judges for the Federal Court of Appeal by one and the number of judges for the Tax Court of Canada by two. It also amends the Judges Act to authorize the salary for the new Associate Chief Justice for the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the salaries for the following new judges: five judges for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, two judges for the Supreme Court of British Columbia and two judges for the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to provide the National Research Council of Canada with the authority to engage in the production of “drugs” or “devices”, as those terms are defined in the Food and Drugs Act, for the purpose of protecting or improving public health. It also amends that Act to provide authority for the incorporation of corporations and the acquisition of shares in corporations.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act in relation to the collection and use of Social Insurance Numbers by the Minister of Labour.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on a guaranteed student loan.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on a student loan.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2023, no interest is payable by a borrower on an apprentice loan.
Division 30 of Part 4 confirms the validity of certain regulations in relation to the cancellation or postponement of certain First Nations elections.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the Old Age Security pension payable to individuals aged 75 and over by 10%. It also provides that any amount payable in relation to a program to provide a one-time payment of $500 to pensioners who are 75 years of age or older may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Service Employment Act to, among other things,
(a) require that the establishment and review of qualification standards and the use of assessment methods in respect of appointments include an evaluation of whether there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group;
(b) provide that audits and investigations may include the determination of whether there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group; and
(c) give permanent residents the same preference as Canadian citizens in external advertised appointment processes.
Division 33 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for early learning and child care for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2021.
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the maximum number of two-week periods in respect of which a Canada recovery benefit is payable is 25;
(b) reduce the amount of a Canada recovery benefit for a week to $300 in certain circumstances;
(c) provide that certain persons who were paid benefits under the Employment Insurance Act are eligible to be paid a Canada recovery benefit in certain circumstances;
(d) provide that the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery caregiving benefit is payable is 42; and
(e) provide that the Governor in Council may, by regulation, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Minister of Finance, amend certain provisions of that Act to replace the date of September 25, 2021 by a date not later than November 20, 2021.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to provide that the maximum number of weeks of leave for COVID-19 related caregiving responsibilities is 42.
Finally, it repeals provisions of the Canada Recovery Benefits Regulations and the Canada Labour Standards Regulations.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) facilitate access to unemployment benefits for a period of one year by
(i) reducing the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for unemployment benefits to a national threshold of 420 hours,
(ii) reducing the amount of earnings from self-employment that a self-employed person is required to have to be eligible to access special unemployment benefits,
(iii) providing that only a claimant’s most recent separation from employment will be considered in determining whether they qualify for unemployment benefits,
(iv) ensuring that earnings paid to a person because of the complete severance of their relationship with their former employer do not extend the person’s benefit period, and
(v) providing for an increase in the maximum number of weeks for which regular unemployment benefits may be paid to a seasonal worker if certain conditions are met; and
(b) extend the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 26.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, extend to 27 the maximum number of weeks to which an employee is entitled for a medical leave of absence from employment.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Regulations to, among other things, ensure that, for a period of one year, earnings paid to a person because of the complete severance of their relationship with their former employer do not extend the person’s benefit period or delay payment of benefits to the person.
Finally, it amends the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations to, among other things, reduce, for a period of one year, the amount of earnings that a fisher is required to have to qualify for unemployment benefits.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that the offences related to the prohibition on making or publishing certain false statements with the intention of affecting the results of an election require that the person or the entity making or publishing the statement knows that the statement in question is false.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, members are well aware that over 16,000 Canadians have died as a result of the opioid crisis. In fact, in British Columbia more people have died from overdoses due to fentanyl-poisoned drugs than from COVID-19. We have heard from Moms Stop the Harm, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Dr. Bonnie Henry in British Columbia and many medical health officers right across the country that the keys to tackling the opioid crisis are ending the stigma and decriminalizing them.

The Liberal government states that it listens to medical health professionals when it comes to the COVID-19 crisis. Why is it not listening to the medical health officers and all of these groups? We can save lives by decriminalizing opioids and ending the stigma for a health issue, instead of continuing to take the approach that it is a criminal issue. Why is the government not taking action? Why is it not listening to its own medical health officers?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for being so passionate about this issue. I completely share his passion on this. I know that Canada suffered a 74% increase in opioid-related deaths in the first six months of the pandemic. Budget 2021 proposes an additional $160 million over two years to address the issue. We are working very closely with provinces and territories to not only look at safe supply, but to truly address this issue. On a personal note, I very much believe in treating opioid use as a health issue and not a criminal issue.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my neighbour from the next riding over, the hon. member for Drummond.

This is the second time that I have been given the honour of speaking on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the 2021 budget, the first in two years. This time, I am speaking to Bill C‑30, which will implement some of the budget's provisions. First of all, I will reiterate that my party will vote in favour of this bill to implement certain measures in the 2021 budget.

We voted against the 2021 budget itself because the federal government did not fulfill our two main requests, namely adequate, recurrent health funding, which was the only formal request made by the Quebec government and echoed by the Canadian provinces, and an increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 and over.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I fully support these two requests because they are vital concerns for seniors. Their anger is not going away. I am not the only one saying this. Many seniors' groups, including the Réseau FADOQ, agree. Seniors aged 65 to 74, seniors aged 75 and over, and children and grandchildren under 65 are all feeling frustrated and bewildered. This is happening not only in Quebec, but in Canada as well, since I am also receiving emails in English and comments from anglophones outside Quebec who know that the Bloc Québécois is the party that stands up for all seniors.

I will therefore discuss three aspects of Bill C‑30 that relate to my three main roles, namely critic for seniors, critic for women, and the one I am proudest of, member for Shefford. I will also address the extension of certain economic measures, with which we agree.

By refusing to increase health transfers from 22% to 35% in Bill C-30, the federal government is once again ignoring the request made by Quebec, the provinces, the Quebec National Assembly and the House of Commons, which adopted a Bloc Québécois motion on this subject in December, to significantly and permanently increase federal health transfers.

Bill C‑30 offers only a one-time increase in health transfers, announced last March. This is certainly not enough to make up for the shortfall that existed well before the pandemic and was exacerbated by the crisis and by population aging. As we have said countless times, we are in a health crisis right now, so now is when we should be taking action, instead of waiting for the crisis to be over.

It is worth noting that the deficit announced in the 2021 budget is lower than anticipated. It is $354 billion instead of the $382 billion announced in the 2020 fall economic statement. By purest chance, the resulting margin happens to be exactly $28 billion, the same amount that Quebec and the provinces are asking for.

By refusing to provide that money even as it gears up for a colossal spending spree, the government is not making a budgetary choice, but a political choice at the expense of everyone's health. After seniors waited so long, Bill C‑30 finally includes the increase to old age security that the Liberals' promised during the 2019 election campaign. However, the increase will only start in 2022, will only apply to seniors aged 75 and over, and will only amount to $766 per year, or $63.80 a month. This increase is insufficient for seniors and for the Bloc Québécois. It totally ignores seniors aged 65 to 74, who account for practically half of all seniors currently receiving old age security.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand a substantial increase, namely $110 more a month, for all seniors aged 65 and over. We do not accept the Liberals' argument that financial insecurity begins at age 75. However, we will not oppose the decision to give some seniors the assistance included in Bill C‑30, which they need and deserve.

Seniors aged 75 and over will receive a one-time payment of $500 in August 2021, which is consistent with what was announced in the budget. It is merely an election ploy, and seniors know it.

The bill also implements the 10% increase promised to seniors 75 and over. As of the quarter starting July 1, 2022, the full monthly old age security benefit will increase by 10% during the period when a senior turns 75. It is strange that the increase does not start until 2022. Is this another election promise?

The government is not doing as we asked, which is what seniors themselves asked it to do. It is creating two classes of seniors. Why increase old age security only once people turn 75? That is age discrimination, it is ageism. It is not true that only seniors 75 and older are vulnerable.

Once again, we are asking for an additional $110 per month for all seniors 65 and up. Financial insecurity, poverty and rising prices do not wait until people turn 75 to kick in. Old age security is a universal program designed to compensate for loss of income after retirement. The Liberals seem to think that vulnerable people over the age of 65 do not deserve their attention. They seem to think that financial insecurity does not affect people until they turn 75. To top it off, all it would have cost is about $4 billion. As my colleague from Joliette said yesterday, and as economics reporter Gérald Fillion wrote in an article, Canada's record on supporting retirees, compared to other OECD countries, is dismal. We are in 32nd place.

Second, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and gender equality, I note that the bill provides for a one-time payment of just over $130 million to the Government of Quebec to harmonize the Quebec parental insurance plan, since the eligibility criteria and benefit period for EI have been temporarily modified and increased. Quebec has the right to opt out with financial compensation with respect to the maternity and parental benefits program.

Thus, if the government invests in improving its program, it must pay for the Quebec government to make a matching investment, the same way the government is giving itself the right to compensate any province that wishes to opt out of the federal early learning and child care program. This is a file we have talked about a lot at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. However, the spending authority for this child care program seems to be valid only for the next fiscal year, from April 2021 to March 2022, for a maximum transfer of $3 billion to each province and to Quebec.

The budget document, as opposed to Bill C‑30, mentions different program objectives and the possibility of an asymmetrical bilateral agreement with Quebec. There are two things we must watch out or. First, does the fact that Bill C‑30 only deals with the 2021–22 fiscal year mean the government is covering the costs of establishing and improving the child care program until asymmetrical agreements are signed?

I should point out that “asymmetrical” does not necessarily mean “unconditional”. It is not the same thing, and it is important to be careful. The budget rightly mentions and praises the Quebec child care system several times, which it claims to be inspired by. The announcement that there will be an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec is a positive sign, but only if this agreement comes with, I repeat, full and unconditional compensation for the total costs and for the program's measures. This is also what the Quebec National Assembly is calling for. The expertise is in Quebec.

Overall, beyond the measures themselves, a new Canada‑wide child care program provides another opportunity for federal interference. Family policies and all the associated programs come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is another example of a government that is getting into the habit of sticking its nose where it does not belong, as it is doing with many other measures, such as the national framework for women's health, the national framework for reproductive health, and so on.

Why create these unnecessary conflicts with Quebec and the provinces? Why does the federal government not mind its own business? For a government that claims to be feminist, it is time to stop playing “father knows best”.

As a final point, I really want to commend the resilience of our businesses and the strong entrepreneurial spirit that defines Shefford. They have been hit hard during the crisis, which is why we are asking that the income stabilization programs be maintained as long as necessary. It is clear that many sectors, including tourism and cultural and artistic events, will not resume normal operations until well after November 2021. These sectors are so important to the economic life of my riding, and they need to know that they can count on assistance as long as they need it. They have talked about the importance of predictability and flexibility. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, which has been used by many companies, including some in Granby's industrial park in my riding, will be extended to September 25, 2021, and that is great.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that our vote in favour of Bill C‑30, which implements certain provisions of the budget, does not mean that we are giving the government a blank cheque. We will be watching closely to see how certain programs are implemented, especially for the hardest-hit sectors, including culture and media, which I am sure my dashing colleague from Drummond will talk about more fully in his speech.

As the member for Beloeil—Chambly often says, the devil is in the details, and there are certainly plenty of details in this budget. However, out of respect for everyone's health, and out of respect for our elders, who have the right to age with dignity by enjoying life, not merely surviving, we must act now.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about my colleague from the Bloc's comments on day care and how the federal government continues to intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction. This Ottawa-knows-best approach that the federal government seems to have is something that I think should be concerning. I think we can all acknowledge the fact that there is an issue with the availability of spaces and the cost of day care. However, the idea that provinces cannot have their own models and compete against other provinces in terms of improving their services, improving their costs and improving whatever is next, I think, shows conformity rather than competition within the provinces.

Can the member comment on that and other issues she has with the Ottawa-knows-best approach being proposed by the government?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

In the budget, the federal government's attempts to interfere are clear. This is the mistake the government has made in reacting to a crisis. It really wants to intrude in our jurisdictions and interfere in everything.

My colleague gave the example of day care. I repeat that it was Quebec that developed this expertise. It does not need Ottawa trying to play the wise old grandfather or father and offering advice, because Quebec knows what to do. In my opinion, the important thing is to have the ability to opt out and do what we have to do based on our needs.

I will repeat that the provincial governments and the Quebec government are in the best position to set their own priorities, especially with respect to education and day care.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning the situation about continuing shortfalls and health funding transfers. That is something that the Bloc and the NDP agree on.

While Canadians are struggling with the health and economic impacts of the pandemic, big companies can continue to hide their profits in offshore tax havens. Could the member talk about how unfair that is, how those who profited from this pandemic just are not paying their fair share?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to give a nod to my colleague from Joliette, because I know he would answer that there is still far too much tax evasion and tax avoidance going on and that we should be doing more about it.

Of course, that is where we could find some money, just as we could get money by taxing the web giants. We could also look for money elsewhere. Some major corporations are evading and avoiding taxes by illegal and sometimes even unethical means. We must recover this money and reinvest it, perhaps in health, where it is desperately needed.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is always passionate and eloquent.

My colleague is right. The fact that the government does not want to improve the old age pension is causing a lot of frustration. Everyone agrees on that. We owe seniors so much more than this.

We have seen a rather odd phenomenon playing out at our constituency offices over the past few weeks, ever since the budget was brought down. It is not necessarily the people concerned, in other words seniors, who are getting in touch to express their dissatisfaction. The surprising thing is that it is their children and grandchildren.

How does my colleague explain the fact that the Liberal government is refusing to give even a tiny amount of money to seniors? The bottom line is that we are talking about 1% of the deficit. Can my colleague elaborate on this?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his hard work. I know that he works hard for the seniors in his riding, as do all of the other Bloc Québécois members.

I do not think there is any question that seniors have been in a precarious financial situation for a long time now. This was an issue before the crisis, and this crisis has only exacerbated the problem. Seniors are not the only ones feeling it. Their grandchildren can see it as well. One young man wrote to me about presenting a petition out of respect for his grandparents, because he thought the situation was unacceptable.

I even hear from seniors who are 76 years old and who say that they do not have more expenses than before and that their financial situation is not necessarily worse than that of their 73‑ or 74‑year‑old neighbour. They are insulted. They could not care less about the $500 cheque if their 73‑year‑old neighbour is not getting it as well. They think that is unfair. The youngest and the oldest citizens recognize that it is unfair to leave out seniors aged 65 to 74.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Shefford for her brilliant speech and for her work on behalf of seniors. Her work can be felt in my own riding, Drummond, which neighbours hers. The work she is doing for seniors is so brilliant and so serious that seniors in my riding recognize that the hon. member for Shefford is doing an outstanding job. I want to commend her.

I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C‑30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. As my colleague said a little earlier, the Bloc welcomes this bill. Needless to say, it contains urgent measures; we all agree on that.

I would like to commend the government for its initiative to remove certain technical barriers that have limited access to media assistance. These include deductions for subscription fees for individuals and the wage subsidy for media outlets. This will be well received by our print media, although there is no telling when the Liberals will realize how much our regional media, especially our weeklies, need legislation to solve the problems of the GAFAM. Even today, the GAFAM makes millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the content of our media and cultural creators.

Division 17 of part 4 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act, in particular by facilitating the exchange of information between levels of government. This will better coordinate Quebec's efforts to provide access to telecommunications services in remote areas. We very much welcome the fact that the government is taking away the right to review CRTC decisions in funding matters for underserved regions. This adds a layer of protection against the government's often ill-advised decisions related to high-speed Internet in the regions. Everyone agrees that the government has clearly shown that this is not its great strength. We have come to expect the Liberals to promise nice things without delivering on them. That is their signature.

Take, for example, the measures announced in the budget for tourism and culture. When the budget was introduced a few weeks ago, the cultural industry's spontaneous reaction was very positive. I had the same type of reaction.

The government announced approximately $1.3 billion in assistance over three years, including $400 million for large and small festivals; $300 million over two years to create a recovery fund for arts, culture, heritage and sports sectors; $500 million for a tourism relief fund; $70 million over three years for the Canada music fund; $105 million over three years for Telefilm Canada; and $39.3 million over two years to support the book industry.

These provisions proved that the government recognized and understood the importance of helping the cultural industry. Many sectors of the industry were in a precarious situation before the pandemic for various reasons, one of which was the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage's budget had not been increased since 2008. For 10 years, there were no investments in culture. The Liberals can lay some of the blame for that on the Conservatives because they undermined our industry by making $45 million in cuts in 2008.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister, the chief expert in empty rhetoric. Yesterday in the House of Commons, he said, “when it comes to culture, Canadians are certainly not going to believe the Conservatives. That is for sure. As a government, we have always been there for creators”.

As the philosopher Plato would say, that is an absurdity. The government has always been there in word. That is true. However, in practice, the Department of Canadian Heritage's budget did not increase from 2015 to early 2020. Why did the Liberals turn a deaf ear to the industry's repeated requests? The industry has been calling for an increase in funding for a long time.

I will not spend time talking about what the Liberals have not done because I only have 10 minutes. As an eternal optimist, I will focus on the future and tell myself that a little pressure and good collaboration might convince the Liberals to reconsider.

I was happy about all those measures I just listed, all those measures to help the tourism and cultural sectors, but I was deeply disappointed that the government opted not to include those measures in Bill C‑30.

Festival season is coming, but the crowds will not be as big as they were two years ago because now we have public health rules to follow. Organizers are already busy preparing for this summer. As I said, they are happy with the funding set aside to help them. They now know that money will show up at some point, but they do not know when.

Arts and entertainment, festivals and tourism need predictability to survive, so I do not understand why the Liberals chose not to act fast to help the creators and artists they claim to stand up for.

Unfortunately, there are other flaws. Let us talk about the so-called digital services tax, or DST, which is a strange name, in my opinion. The chapter of the budget on the digital services tax starts off by saying, “The government is committed to ensuring that corporations in all sectors, including digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn by doing business in Canada.” It is there in black and white. However, this tax will not apply to companies like Spotify, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, Apple Music and Netflix, who draw their income from user subscription fees.

This tax, nicknamed the “Netflix tax”, will not apply to Netflix. This week in the House, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage questions about this digital services tax. To summarize, I asked why the government continued to give multinational web giants a free ride. The minister replied that I had it all wrong. He then declared that web giants would be taxed.

I know that the minister has a lot on his plate these days with all the questions about the environment. I will be happy to help him understand culture and communications a little better. The tax the Minister of Canadian Heritage was talking about was the GST, which is paid by consumers, not companies. Companies collect it and hand it over to the government.

Page 733 of the budget says that the digital services tax would not apply to companies that stream digital audiovisual content. The Bloc Québécois wants the digital services tax to apply to companies that stream this kind of content. The idea is that this money would be given to our cultural and media industries as compensation, as they have unfairly suffered from the arrival of the Web giants. The government, however, would rather put that money in the consolidated revenue fund than use it to help those that urgently need it.

Netflix streams audiovisual content, and Netflix and the others have a significant impact on our cultural sector, so Netflix is not subject to the Netflix tax. That speaks volumes about the government's understanding of the issues. The government does not need to thank me for my insights; if it has any more questions, it knows where to find me. Seriously, though, I am astounded that the Liberals do not appear to have a concept of fairness. The government seriously lacks courage in dealing with foreign companies.

I now want to talk about a topic that my colleague from Shefford raised earlier. This topic affects us all and considerably affects my constituents in Drummond. With Bill C‑30, the Liberal government is finally getting to its 2019 election promise to increase old age security, but only as of the age of 75 and only by $766 a year. As members know, this increase will not even happen until 2022. I think the House is well aware of the Bloc Québécois's position on this subject, but I want to give a voice to those who have been forgotten and who are affected by this.

This week, Mr. Bibeau called my office to share his disappointment with my team. He did not understand why the government made this choice to increase OAS at 75 only. He said, “I am retired. I receive the old age pension too and I think it is unfair that I am not getting that increase. My needs are no different from those 75 and older. I have to buy groceries and I have bills and rent to pay, just like them. I am not saying that I am jealous. I am happy that they are getting that money, but I do not understand this choice by the Liberals. I do not know if I am still going to be here when I am 75. I want to fully enjoy my retirement, spoil myself a bit and it seems that it would be a show of respect for the government to give this increase starting at 65 for all the years I worked and contributed, right?”

I understand and I share Mr. Bibeau's dissatisfaction, concerns and dismay. There are others like him: Mrs. Gaudreault, Mrs. Tellier, Mr. Paradis, Mrs. Guérin. Many people share Mr. Bibeau's point of view.

In Quebec, 19% of the population is over 65. In Canada, two million people are between the ages of 65 and 74, or two million people have been ignored by a government that made the choice to increase the pension at 75 as though the pandemic and the cost of living did not affect people 65 to 74. I think this deserves some serious thought.

I would now be happy to answer my colleague's questions.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk, in particular from the Bloc, about the age of 65 versus the age of 75, and the increase that is being proposed in this budget. There is data out there to suggest and to support that the older people get, the more they burn through their retirement savings, the more health costs they incur and, generally speaking, the more expensive life becomes, compared to what they have as they get older.

Is it the Bloc's preference that, rather than giving more to those over 75, less is given to everybody over 65? That is another option. We could take that amount that we were going to give to those who really need it, those who are over 75, and spread it out between everybody over 65. Is that the preference of the Bloc?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it peculiar that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would suggest that the opposition should have to make the tough decisions. What a ridiculous thing to say.

People have paid into their pension plans for their entire careers and their whole lives, knowing that they would retire at 65. That is often the choice people make when starting their careers, or at least it was a few years ago. They are entitled to their pensions. They have the same expenses, the same needs and the same cost of living increases to deal with. Health care costs may be higher or more of a burden at age 75 and above, but that does not make it any more equitable to allocate these increases only to those aged 75 and older.

If the member would bother to listen to his own constituents, he might see that this is not just a suggestion from the Bloc Québécois, but a concern of all seniors across Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask about telecom, but I will carry on with this discussion. It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary's first response was to cut people back, whereas we know that people aged 65 and over are entering into or staying in the workforce longer because their pensions do not make—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I was the one speaking, not a parliamentary secretary.

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

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point. He is not a parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Windsor West.