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.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.

However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.

As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.

An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.

There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.

In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.

Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.

As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.

Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.

For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.

I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.

Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.

Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.

There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.

Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.

Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.

During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.

One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.

In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.

As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.

For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.

[Benoit Cadieux, Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Benoit Cadieux. I'm the director for employment insurance special benefits policy at Employment and Social Development Canada.

Today, I'm joined by my colleague Mona Nandy, who is the director general of employment insurance policy at ESDC.

As you may be aware, in June 2021, Parliament approved, through the Budget Implementation Act, 2021 No. 1, an extension of employment insurance sickness benefits.

This extension increases from 15 to 26 the maximum number of weeks of EI sickness benefits payable to workers, including the self-employed who are registered, when they are unable to work due to illness, injury or quarantine. The target date for this extension to come into effect is the end of 2022. The exact date will be announced later this fall.

The EI program is a labour market program designed to provide short-term income support to workers during temporary absences from work. A key objective of the EI program is to support labour market reintegration, and it is designed with the expectation that claimants will return to work after interruptions resulting from life events or job loss.

In this context, EI sickness benefits are designed to complement other supports available to workers in cases of longer-term illnesses, such as employer-provided benefits and longer-term disability supports.

Roughly one-third of EI claimants use all 15 weeks currently available under EI sickness benefits. Out of this number, close to half do not return to work following their sickness leave. Most of those who do return to work do so within 10 weeks after exhausting their benefits.

Bill C‑215, as introduced, would amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend to 52 weeks the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits that may be paid to a worker or self-employed person when they are unable to work because of illness, injury or quarantine.

This bill also contains coordinating amendments to ensure that if this bill should receive royal assent before or on the same day as the extension to 26 weeks comes into force, this bill would repeal the provisions related to the extension to 26 weeks so they don't come into force afterwards.

Finally, this bill does not specify any date of entry into force. It is therefore implicit that it will come into force on the day it receives royal assent.

Thank you.

Employment Insurance Act

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his bill seeking to make changes to EI.

I am really happy to be speaking to this bill today, and I have enjoyed the debate because my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London have brought forward a lot of really good points. I think that speaks to the bill, that we have a lot of people speaking about the need for employment insurance reform and that members are bringing forward various examples.

What I would like to speak to, though, is what we have been doing in employment insurance reform and then speak to what I have heard today in debate.

On June 29, 2021, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, contained the provisions to amend the EI sickness benefit to bring it from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. It received royal assent back in June of last year and will go into effect this summer, when we will move from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We did this because we recognized that the need for increased weeks of employment insurance is sometimes necessary for those who are sick.

Last summer, the minister joined the commissioners of the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultation portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups. The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program can better serve Canadians. Input was received from over 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed worker and gig worker associations, parents and family associations and health organizations, to name a few.

The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern El system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers. The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities related to improving access to El, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether El meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families. As we have heard today in some of the debate, it seems there are some areas that we still need to look at.

For example, how do we make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and more inclusive for adoptive parents? There are differing views, obviously, and I know that the minister has found unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern El program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round table consultations by summer.

Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultation, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports available. In particular, I want to highlight the excellent work done in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the El program.

As we have heard, the El program has been a crucial part of Canada's social safety net since 1940. As we also heard today, we obviously need to get this right. My colleagues talked a little about severe illnesses, for instance, the case of cancer. We never want someone to feel like they have to go back to work if they are ill.

When someone has cancer, we want them to focus on fighting the disease and getting better. We do not want them worrying about paying their rent or buying groceries, or what they are going to do if they do not have insurance.

I was told about some such cases in my riding, and that included friends of mine. I have a friend who is in the restaurant business and he had prostate cancer when he was 40 years old.

He did not have private insurance. He came to speak to us and was very frank. Instead of focusing on his treatments, he worried about losing his home and not being able to take care of his children. He spoke about what he called the business of cancer, something we never really think about. We think about the person receiving treatment, about them winning the fight against cancer, but we do not think about the human side and the financial aspects of this fight, or of its impact on the family.

Today, I listened to my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London, who talked about similar cases. Some people need more than 15 weeks, others more than 26 weeks. That is why we held consultations.

When we debate private members' bills, I always listen to the various positions and points being raised. We had a really good debate this morning, and I want to again commend my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his Bill C‑215.

I think, when we are debating legislation, what is really important is to listen to all of our colleagues across the way. This was a really good debate where examples clearly demonstrated that 26 weeks may not be enough and we might need more.

I know that a previous piece of legislation, very similar to this one, did require royal recommendation. I believe, in this case, it will require that as well. I believe this piece of legislation has the support of the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at the moment. I do not know who on my side is supporting it because it is a private member's bill. I think members brought forward very interesting arguments as to why we need to take a look at this and see if 26 weeks is sufficient.

I have not made up my mind, and I am sure there are people behind me or in the lobby who are saying that I am at it again, but I have not made up my mind on whether I will support this bill at second reading to go to committee. I think some interesting arguments have definitely been presented today.

The bill will likely need to address specific cases, such as cancer or severe illness, that require more weeks of benefits for those who need them. I know that not all Canadians have access to private or employer-provided insurance.

I think that is something that must—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to participate in the debate on a bill.

However, today, I have to say that I am really disappointed to be here once again debating a bill that, as we know, affects sick workers who need more than 15 weeks of special employment insurance sickness benefits.

During the previous Parliament, I had the privilege of introducing a bill that is similar to that of my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. We are both concerned about people who worked and contributed their whole life and who did not choose to get sick, to get cancer, for example. They deserve more than 15 weeks of support.

It has been very well documented that, today, workers often need more than 15 weeks to recover. They need to fight the illness, receive treatment, heal and regain their strength before they can return to work. No one chooses to be sick.

As I was saying, I am always happy to debate, but I am incredibly disappointed today. I would even say that I am angry, because we are wasting time. As far back as at least 2011, all parties, including the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party when it was in opposition, agreed that it was time to amend the Employment Insurance Act and that these changes were needed to support workers through an illness.

I am disappointed because, as members know, I introduced Bill C‑265 in the previous Parliament, and this bill was passed at second reading. We worked on it in committee, which was an amazing experience for me. It was the first time that I had the opportunity to debate with parliamentarians from all parties and to hear witnesses speak to Bill C‑265. Today we are debating Bill C‑215, which is practically the same bill. I am sharing this story with my colleagues because committee stage is the right place and the most appropriate place to have in-depth debate and improve the bill.

We can all agree that Bill C‑215 is not a big bill. It seeks to amend just one section of the Employment Insurance Act. We are asking that benefits be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. During the last Parliament, when we debated in committee, we heard from all sorts of witnesses. Quite honestly, I would say that we did not see any significant resistance to extending benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

What really caught my attention was the study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to that study, we collectively have the means to provide the most vulnerable workers the support they need to return to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated and documented the fact that a small increase in contributions, which does not amount to much in the lives of every employer, would financially help thousands of sick workers.

We all know someone in our lives who has gone through the process of recovering or fighting cancer. We know that some cancers can be healed in 15 weeks. However, we also know that if a person has the misfortune of being diagnosed with certain other cancers like colon cancer or rectal cancer, they will need 30 to 37 weeks of financial support to get through it. That is scientifically documented. Advanced technology and science are making it possible for more and more people with cancer to recover, but they still need to take the time to go through the treatment.

When it comes to honest workers who are among the most vulnerable, those who do not have group insurance or the necessary support from their employer, it is rather disgraceful that a rich country like ours is abandoning them.

I often joke that with a quick stroke of the pen, the government could decide, by ministerial order, to extend benefits from 15 weeks to 50 or 52.

It would be humane and compassionate of the government to say, after listening to the witnesses and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that since bills have been introduced year after year for 10 years, enough is enough. It should quickly pass Bill C-215 or give it a royal recommendation in order to reassure the sick workers who are watching the debate today and who do not understand what is happening.

Personally, I wonder why the government is not taking action on this file. Members will recall that, last year, we passed Bill C-30, which contained a provision that would extend benefits from 15 weeks to 26 in 2022. Why wait so long? What is the justification?

Bill C‑30 received royal assent on June 29, 2021, which was almost a year ago, but I am still trying to convince my colleagues that this failure to move forward makes no sense. Mainly, I am trying to convince my colleagues across the way, because they are the ones who are not on board. I know the Liberal benches over there are full of compassionate MPs who care about sick people, so why on earth is cabinet so dead set against it?

I have my theories, but I wonder which lobby group has been quietly telling cabinet to put it off for as long as possible. Maybe insurance companies, maybe employers? I have no idea, but I do want to point out that employers said they were not opposed to extending the special EI benefit period.

That leaves me wondering who is behind this, because I just cannot understand why I am still here on June 13 giving a speech about a bill to protect and support our most vulnerable workers.

I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for not giving up and for reintroducing his bill, which will help put the spotlight on the government benches to make it clear to the Liberals that this is not a partisan issue. This bill is about humanity, compassion and understanding of the status of a worker who is seriously ill. Perhaps one day we will know who is preventing the government from moving forward more quickly.

It is supposed to come into force in the summer of 2022. According to my assistant, Charles, Quebec strawberries are in season, which means summer is here. If summer is here, why has the government not announced that it is giving royal recommendation to Bill C-215, so that we can give all our vulnerable and seriously ill workers all the support they need to fight their illness, recover and get back to work?

I appeal to the compassion and humanity of the Liberal members opposite.

Economic and Fiscal Update 2021

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, there was an election at the end of the summer.

There was certainly no need for that election.

We wondered why the election was called, what purpose it served, what were the priorities, what should be asked and what should be changed. Today, we are right back where we started: The Liberals have a minority government. Again, the people did not have enough confidence in the Liberals to give them a majority. In Quebec, we kept the same breakdown and the same number of seats for each party.

Instead of calling a pointless election, we could have carried on working and sitting. We could have followed through on support measures. We could have followed through on everything that was in the previous budget, the one tabled in April 2021. We could not do any of that because of the election. Then we were subjected to what I would call an insipid throne speech. What was the next logical step? What vision did the throne speech have to offer? In the wake of a so-called necessary election, there was nothing new under the sun.

Today we got the economic and fiscal update. We were expecting it because it was promised in the last budget. We were told there would be one in the fall. Quite frankly, the economic and fiscal update was a bit lightweight compared to what we are used to, both in the number of pages and the measures and vision within it. I suppose that was to be expected given the unnecessary election and the vacuous throne speech.

Two months after the election the Liberals called, the government has run out of steam. It is exhausted. It has no ideas, no new proposals. This is ridiculous, unprecedented and discouraging.

Five days ago, all the provinces got together for the Council of the Federation. United, they asked Ottawa to deal with the health care problem. They want a meeting. It is urgent; it is a priority. This is not a frivolous ask, anything but. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analyses remind us year after year, when it comes to spending and the budget, the problem is with the provinces. That is true. Why is it true? The reason is that Ottawa has not been paying its fair share for a long time. Ottawa is not spending enough money on health care.

The Conference Board of Canada, the Council of the Federation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and all the provinces are saying that, the way things are going, the provinces are heading towards a tax wall, while Ottawa's fiscal situation will be exceptional, despite the extraordinary expenses incurred during the pandemic. Health care spending is increasing, and Ottawa's transfers are not keeping pace.

The provinces repeated all of this five days ago. What was Ottawa's response? The government is basically telling them to take a hike. Why do I say that? It is because, based on the projected numbers and budgets, there is no increase relative to what is being requested. Until 2027, there is no increase. The government is on the warpath, and the provinces are being challenged. They need health care funding, but they will get nothing.

The document is about 50 pages long, not including the annexes. Two or three pages are devoted to the speech, and about two and a half pages are used to explain why the provinces will not get a penny more for health care. The Liberal logic is that extraordinary spending was needed during the pandemic, so they feel they have done enough. Since the provinces have benefited, they will not get a penny for health care until 2027. The government's logic is to say that it paid the wage subsidy and indirectly helped the provinces because the people who received the wage subsidy pay taxes to the province. I want to believe that this was necessary and important spending, but it does nothing to address the fundamental problem. The federal government needs to pay its fair share of health care spending. Nothing has been resolved, and war has been declared on the provinces. This is unacceptable and we strongly condemn it.

Furthermore, there are few measures in the update, although there are some that we applaud, in particular the measures for working seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

My colleague and I have been raising this issue since the summer. We wrote to our respective counterparts on the government side during and after the election and as recently as this week. The government said that it would solve the problem. We proposed solutions, such as including the CERB as employment income when calculating the GIS, or recalculating the amount for the current year for those who were not supposed to receive the CERB or who received too much money and now have to pay it back. To resolve this situation, Service Canada and the CRA really should sit down together and talk.

The government listened to our suggestions and responded that technical considerations ruled them out. In the economic update, the proposed solution is altogether different from what we suggested. We are disappointed because we had some good solutions. That said, we do not have the inside track, and since we do not have access to the inner workings of government, we may be unaware of certain considerations because we do not know what they are. For example, there may be some software that cannot process this information, even though it seems quite straightforward.

Throughout the pandemic, the government responded in the same way to all the measures we suggested. That said, the government is nonetheless proposing a solution, which is a payment to make up for the loss of income, as seniors will no longer receive the CERB after one year. It is a big, rather odd band-aid approach to solving the problem, but it might work. The stumbling block here is the time frame.

As my colleague from Shefford knows, seniors in these situations are facing serious challenges. We hear horror stories in our ridings. Some seniors are having to leave their homes, sell their furniture and move. They sometimes have to stop taking medications and go to the hospital, where their medications are covered. They cannot afford medication because of the drop in their income. These are actual, real-life situations.

The government has proposed to solve the problem by sending them a payment, but not until next May. This situation has been going on since the summer, so that would mean that seniors will have been struggling with this issue for nearly a year. What will happen to them? We are very concerned about this. We will certainly do everything we can to get this payment out quicker, because there is a serious need. This wait is neither reasonable nor acceptable.

We also spoke out about the fact that the government created two classes of seniors, which is unacceptable. Seniors do not like it. We are calling on the government to fix this by increasing old age security by $110 a month for all seniors. It is a simple, concrete and effective measure that would support seniors whose income is not adjusted to inflation, which is currently hitting record highs.

There was not a single word about this, however. There are still two classes of seniors, and the government did not propose a single meaningful measure to combat inflation, aside from child care, which does not exactly make up for the increase in grocery bills. We are still very worried about seniors. We appreciate that a solution was proposed to the problem with the GIS and the CERB, but it comes too late and is flawed.

As I said, the budget was pretty slim. Our in camera meeting began at 11:45, and I would say we had covered pretty much everything by 1 p.m. Members of our party had to stay in camera until 4 p.m. Thank goodness people had some good jokes to tell to help pass the time.

It was our understanding that one element of this budget, as detailed in annex 3, would be in the notice of ways and means we would be voting on. During questions and answers in camera, we were told that the notice of ways and means contained nothing else. That is what I told reporters. By the time I returned to the House, the notice of ways and means had been tabled. It was 92 pages long and included the digital services taxation issue. I was surprised to see that, and I will get back to that in a minute.

That is a good thing, but the fact remains that annex 3 of the economic update includes a measure to tax residences, dwellings, condos and homes of foreign owners who do not occupy them. This is a token measure to slow housing inflation, curb speculation and make housing a little more affordable. The idea is to create an incentive so that non-residents and non-Canadians find it less appealing to buy housing in Canada that they do not intend to occupy and therefore contribute less to the economy.

We agree with that principle. Yes, we have to be careful, and, yes, all the housing units have to help people. The Bloc Québécois has major reservations, however, because this is a property tax. I am sure the federal government's reasons for collecting a property tax are noble, but the tax would supposedly be temporary. What has history taught us? Every time the federal government pokes its nose into a new tax field, no matter how small or temporary, there is no going back. The government has kept increasing this form of taxation every time.

Among the various forms of taxation that exist, such as consumption taxes, income tax, corporate taxes and many others, there was one tax field that was not yet occupied by the federal government, to my knowledge: property tax. This is essentially managed by municipalities, under provincial legislation. For instance, Quebec gives municipalities the power to levy property taxes.

Ottawa had been staying out of it, until now. However, according to annex 3 and the budget, Ottawa wants a cut. We have serious concerns, because this leviathan always tends to have an unquenchable thirst for tax dollars. We will certainly have to revisit this. I would remind the House that the principle is interesting, but seeing Ottawa interfere in this area of taxation is really worrisome for us in the Bloc Québécois.

During the election campaign, we kept hearing the same complaint from small and medium-sized businesses day after day. My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel could attest to that more than anyone here. I am talking about the labour shortage. We thought that with an economic and fiscal update in the last week before the break, the Liberals would take the bull by the horns and come up with some solutions.

During the election campaign, the Bloc was the political party that proposed the most solutions, in particular to address productivity, to make it easier for seniors to return to part-time work by putting fiscal measures in place, and to accelerate the whole immigration process, for both temporary and permanent workers.

I could go on like this, talking about innovation and increasing productivity, and so on.

Other than that one line that says that the government is investing in immigration to try to speed up the process, everything else in the document just says that the government will propose something in the coming year. However, today was not the time for the government to say that it would come up with something in the next year; it was the time for the government to say what action it would be taking. Our party has put forward a number of solutions, and the update was an opportunity for them to be put into practice. That did not happen and we are speaking out about it. We are very disappointed.

As I was saying, this feels like a government that is exhausted and out of breath, that no longer has any ideas and proposes nothing, barely two months after it was elected. That is worrisome.

Another thing that concerns us is the issue of inflation. The document contains private sector forecasts. For this year, they say they expect a rate of 7.6%, which is higher than what we are seeing now. Prices could continue to rise if these forecasts are accurate. Now, on the bright side, the rate will come back down as early as next year and the problem will resolve itself in subsequent years, which was our read on the problem.

We would have expected the government to be more focused on this issue. We need only consider low-income households or, as I was saying earlier, seniors whose income is not indexed to the cost of living.

In rereading my notes, I see that many small measures were announced, such as an increase in the tax credit for teachers and ECEs purchasing supplies for children, up from 15% to 25%. That is fine, but the government could have brought in better measures.

There is one thing I would like to address. In April, the budget that we had been waiting for for two years was finally tabled. That budget contained a lot of announcements about money and measures, and it was thick and wide-ranging. The government pushed it through. It contained some worthwhile measures, notably those pertaining to support measures, the recovery and the green recovery. We said that we would pass it.

After the budget came Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, which incorporated a small part of the budget. We adopted that one as well, figuring that we would wait to see what came after the budget.

Nothing came after the budget, however, because the government called an election. The Liberals campaigned on measures that were in the budget that we had adopted, but today's update, which was presented after the election campaign, does not incorporate those measures. They are gone, which means they were nothing more than election promises that were only useful on the campaign trail.

The budget presented last spring contained 52 legislative measures and 100 pages of tax measures. Most of them did not end up in Bill C-30 and are not in today's update either. With this update, the government is therefore telling us that everything it announced in its last budget was only there to get the Liberals re-elected and to win a majority. It did not win that majority, however, because we wanted to keep it a minority. It is trying again with this budget.

That is the message being sent. It is very worrisome. The government seems to have no vision. I cannot get over it. This is my third election, and it is the first time that I have seen Parliament's return delayed, since we had to wait two months to come back. The ministers were late getting appointed. The Speech from the Throne was short, and there was not much in it. It was also boring, especially in the way it was read. I will refrain from being too critical about that, but it is true that the person who read it has to be held responsible.

The update is the logical next step in all this, having been tabled by a government that acts because it is forced to, but that is tired and breaking down. It needs a bit more pep.

If the government is out of ideas, the Bloc Québécois has plenty. It has energy too. The government needs to listen to us because we are going to propose some legislation to bring in.

Let us start with resolving the issue of health. Polls show that it is the top priority. We do not want conditions imposed on the provinces, we want transfers. That is what the provinces are calling for. The government needs to fix this because it is urgent, and so is the situation with seniors.

[Trevor McGowan]

I would say, and perhaps Max can provide an update on it, that I believe that the June committee hearing resulted in an amendment to Bill C-30 that would require the tabling of a report in Parliament, rather than simply a recommendation. This is certainly something that we have been thinking about.

I can say that, when the government was looking at the best options to extend the wage subsidy, the decision was taken to extend the increases in executive compensation rules that were announced in budget 2021 and enacted in Bill C-30.

[Trevor McGowan]

I would note that, in budget 2021, and as enacted in Bill C-30 of the last Parliament, the government introduced rules that would require repayment of the Canada emergency wage subsidy for public companies that have increased their top executive compensation between two reference periods. It started in 2021, versus 2020. Now that the subsidies are being extended into 2022, you will find measures in Bill C-2 that would extend the government's announced requirement to repay the wage subsidy for large companies or public companies based on increases in executive compensation. That feature is continued.

[Trevor McGowan]

The government has announced that it would not apply before November 1, 2021. As a general rule, income tax amendments often apply as of the date of their announcement.

For example, Bill C-30 received royal assent on the same day as Bill C-208. It was the first budget bill for 2021. That had a number of measures that had application dates based on March 18, 2019, the day of the 2019 federal budget related to, for example, the foreign affiliate dumping rules, some mutual fund trust measures using an allocation redeeming methodology, and individual pension plans. Several amendments had their application dates based upon—

[Trevor McGowan]

Yes. It's quite common that when income tax amendments are made, they apply as of a future date. A bill like Bill C-30, the recent budget bill, might have a number of amendments that, even though it also received royal assent on June 29, might not start to apply until a later taxation year or a later date in the future, in order to give the taxpayers and the tax administration time to respond.

[Trevor McGowan]

I suppose there are two things to discuss there. The first relates to the decision-making process in terms of the press release. In that, the department follows the regular approval process that we use for all of our public communications projects, in alignment with the requirements of the federal communications policy.

In terms of the substantive portion of the question, as I said, on June 29 Bill C-208 produced its effect and amended the Income Tax Act. The government's announcement on June 30 was that the government proposes to introduce legislation providing that the amendments would apply only as of January 1, 2022. It's perhaps a technical point that the June 30 amendment would amend the Income Tax Act, which had been amended by Bill C-30 ahead of time, but the government was announcing its intention to table legislation to provide a January 1, 2022, application date.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to the order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-30.

The House resumed from June 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Motions in amendment

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to speak tonight to this important bill. I am going to take a bit of a different slant on this.

As members know, I was first elected in 2019, so I am a relatively new member of this House. This period of time just before the session ends for the summer is a very busy time, as I understand. This is my first experience with it. It is the first time I have gotten to see the government trying to complete its agenda, which is kind of lagging. What I have been expecting is the very best the government has to offer to get its agenda through before the House rises for the summer.

My background, really briefly, is that I come from the accounting world, and specifically the management accounting area. Efficiency was one of the things I really focused on. I worked in a manufacturing plant and I helped people figure out the easiest way to do their job so that it required the least amount of labour and we could produce the best product, most efficiently, at the best price. Essentially, it is where I learned one of my mottoes, which is “Work smarter, not harder.”

As I have watched what has gone on here in the last couple of weeks from my lens, a relatively new lens, I have witnessed the exact opposite of efficiency. It has been quite fascinating. In fact, I imagine that when our Prime Minister was on his way back from his vacation trip to Europe a couple of weeks ago, he had to stop in a quarantine hotel like all other Canadians, except that he of course stayed in a special hotel that was close to his house and was only there for a few hours—but I digress. He probably would have called his government House leader to ask how things were going and how the legislation was coming along. Unfortunately, the government House leader would have had to give him the sad news that nothing had happened, that in fact everything had stalled out because of the many mistakes made by the government. In fact, everything was in chaos, as he could see if he looked at Bill C-30 or Bill C-10 or anything else.

As we look at this bill, the government House leader has denied many times that the Liberals are going to call an election shortly, saying it is the event that just is not going to happen. However, in April, on this bill, the Liberals seemed to suddenly realize that they needed to pass something, and that is where Bill C-12 came into the picture. They needed to pass something just in case the event that is not going to happen happens.

After months of inaction on this bill, suddenly there was a big panic. Why is the government willing to ram through a flawed bill just before the summer? It is just in case that event that is not going to happen happens. Of course, the Liberals could wait until September, but here we are instead. It is the last panic time before the event that is not going to happen happens. This is hypocritical, and it is very disrespectful to our democracy.

I want to look at Bill C-12 through my new eyes. I had a front-row seat to this bill because I am on the environment committee. I have been able to see this first-hand. One of the questions I was asking myself was, “How do we have success when creating a new law?” Of course, the first step is to write a good bill. When the minister came to our committee, the first thing he said was that he was open to amendments. I am assuming he said that because he knew that the bill was not well written and that it had many flaws.

He just opened the floodgates, because there were 114 amendments that came to committee, and 17 of those came from the government itself. The bill was only 10 pages long at that point. That is over 11 amendments per page, or four per clause. That is a lot of amendments. Those numbers alone should prove that this bill was flawed.

Every morning we are led in a prayer by the Speaker, and one of the lines in that prayer is “Grant us wisdom....to make good laws....” I cannot sit back and watch this law come into force. It is a bad law. The number of amendments also showed that this was true.

The second way that we could have success when creating a new law is to get feedback. There was a lot of feedback. There were 75 briefs received by the environment committee, which is great. A lot of Canadians put in a lot of hard work to write reports and provide information to the committee. The bad news is that only eight of those briefs were received before we started our study. That was because the study was jammed in. It was rushed into committee with a very short deadline.

That means that 67 briefs were received after we did our study. It means that the work of many Canadians was ignored, and the government was happy to ignore it. It was not particularly interested in listening to the views of people who submitted the briefs. It had a plan, an idea of what it wanted to accomplish, and that is what it was going to do.

The third way we could make sure to have success in creating a new bill is to let the committee do its work. The first thing the government did was make a deal with the NDP. It did not want the committee to get bogged down in any details of actually providing useful information. It wanted to be able to ram things through.

The Liberal-NDP coalition did exactly that. It rammed this bill through the committee. Almost every single vote at the committee was marked by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Liberals and the NDP made no bones about their coalition.

The NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley posted to his Twitter before the clause by clause started, “[T]he NDP will be proposing amendments that the government has agreed to support.... We have also jointly agreed to a number of other amendments.”

What was the practical result of this? The New Democrats and the Liberals fell silent. They did not ask questions. I am not even sure they read many of the amendments or even understood what they were. They had a plan. They just knew to vote for this and not vote for that. Therefore, it fell to the Conservatives and the Bloc MPs to scrutinize these amendments. As for me, I asked reasoned and thoughtful questions of the departmental experts as to the consequences of certain amendments, but the problem was that there were 114 amendments, as I said.

As I also mentioned, the government put forward 17 of its own amendments. That means that on 17 separate occasions, the minister messed up drafting the bill and he needed his MPs to fix it. That is like us buying a new car, driving it off the lot and just as we are leaving, the salesman says he has scheduled 17 appointments for us to come back for maintenance because the dealer messed up and there are a bunch of problems with the car. Therefore, we drive it off the lot, go back tomorrow and the dealer starts fixing it. It makes no sense.

The Liberals and the New Democrats on the committee were only interested in their amendments. They refused to engage with us on our amendments. To prove my point, there was kind of a funny example.

Subsection 7(4) of the original bill required that the minister would set national targets five years in advance. The government and NDP wanted to change that to 10 years in advance. The problem was the Greens put forward an identical amendment and because they got there first, we dealt with their amendment first.

As was the practice of the government and the NDP members, they did not want to support anyone else's amendments and certainly not the Greens'. Therefore, the Green amendment was voted on and was rejected. Next up was the government amendment that was literally identical. The chair, rightly so, ruled that it was inadmissible because we had just dealt with this at committee and we had decided not to proceed with it. That was a big problem. Everybody wanted to vote for that second one because the members actually wanted the amendment. However, I do not think they read the first one from the Greens, which was the same, and they did not realize they had just voted down, essentially, their own amendment.

In the end, after a very long discussion and a lot of time wasted, the government members finally realized that instead of saying 10 years, they could say “9 years 366 days”, which was different enough to get it passed. I found that quite humorous, that the government members were not able to accomplish this.

I have an amendment that was read tonight, and it is in a section of the bill referring to the work of the advisory body, specifically the annual report that it has to submit. My amendment would require that the minister make the annual report public and, further, that the minister publicly respond to this report. It would require the government to actually take action, which is something we all know the Liberals are quite allergic to. The Liberals tried to make an amendment on this section at committee, but theirs was sloppy and it left the legislation in very bad shape.

Essentially, the Liberal-NDP amendment added words but it did not remove redundant words, so the bill as it is written right now makes no sense in that section. It still includes a long sentence that should not be there and it starts with a partial word. It just does not make a whole lot of sense. My amendment allows that wording to make sense again.

The Green Party put forward some really good amendments. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was quite frustrated at committee. I want to quote her because it is quite telling. She said:

I have to say that this is the most dispiriting process of clause-by-clause that I've experienced in many years. Usually amendments are actually considered, people actually debate them and there is a good-faith process....

I condemn this government for what it has done: for telling people like me, who believed in good faith that there would be an actual appetite for change to improve the bill and who accepted it and prepared amendments, only to show up here and watch Liberals stay mute, the NDP stay mute and march through their amendments, passing them in force, and not listening and not caring about the possibility that other amendments might work.

What happens when there is a flawed committee process? Flawed legislation results. Bill C-12 is flawed legislation.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

I realize this will probably be my last speech before an election. Before I get to the budget, I would like to acknowledge that it is an honour to represent the people of Markham—Unionville in Parliament. When I first came to this country over 45 years ago, I barely spoke English and never imagined representing my community on the town council, let alone in Parliament. I want to thank my community for its continued support.

COVID-19 will be an event people will talk about for generations. A virus ground the whole world to a halt and killed millions. No government was truly prepared, and politicians were put in a position where they needed to make important calls quickly instead of waiting years to address the problem. In come countries, politicians rose to the occasion and worked with one another to help their country overcome the pandemic. In other countries, governments kept people in the dark about the pandemic, denied there was a problem and turned every decision into political showmanship. It is clear that Canada was in the second category.

In this budget, the Liberal government is planning to double down on many of its terrible ideas. Instead of focusing on what Canadians need to get back on their feet, the Liberals are looking for ways to spend on their priorities. Of course, those priorities always include making Liberal insiders a boatload of money. So far, the consultant and lobbyist business has never been better for people with a connection to the Prime Minister. The Liberals' priorities are adding billions of dollars to the debt that we cannot afford.

We know that when Liberal MPs defend their Prime Minister's spending spree, they like to slip into technical terms that make it hard to follow. I am going to try to do the opposite and make my points easy to follow.

When I came to this country, I pinched every penny. I was an Indian teen with almost no English, and finding a job was not easy. Every dollar I spent mattered. I made a lot of tough decisions in those days about what I could go without. That meant a lot of cheese sandwiches.

When I started my family, I had to continue making tough decisions. We could not spend more money than we earned. I remember sitting down with my wife Roopa multiple times and deciding to save for the children's education or for rainy days rather than taking a vacation. For us, education was the most important thing. That education included teaching my children about budgeting.

I believe that the hard decisions I made with Roopa at the kitchen table paid off. My eldest child, Rohin, is a physician now, and I could not be more proud of his success. The savings I put aside when he was still a baby helped him afford his medical education. His wife Preoli is a dentist with a very similar story.

My other son, Tarun, went to university and now works in the provincial government. He also used what he learned in school in business. My daughter Shalin was recently accepted into a law program. All of these events proved to my wife and me that saving had been the right choice. We had gone without many of the things we wanted, but we had the money we needed when tuition was due for our children.

I know that Liberals hate it when Conservatives compare balancing the budget with balancing the household. The Liberals say that it is much more complicated than that. While the federal budget is more complicated, the basic facts remain the same.

When money is borrowed, someone is on the hook for it. That may come as a shock to some members of this House. Every time there is a vote in this House to spend money, I think about who pays. Years ago when people talked about the budget, they would say that the government should overspend in the bad years to stimulate the economy, and in the good years the government should pay off the debts. That way, the next time things took a turn for the worse, there would be money ready to stimulate the economy again.

The Liberal government has abandoned that way of thinking. It wants Canadians to believe that no government has to pay anything back, that through careful planning the government could juggle the debts forever and have all the benefits of overspending with none of the drawbacks. It is a terrible plan.

COVID-19 proved that governments need to have room to spend. Without government support, many Canadians would have been bankrupted by COVID-19. I know that even with some government support, many small businesses did not make it.

The pandemic has raised our debt to new heights. When we vote on spending money in Parliament, we need to remember that we must be ready for the next crisis. That means not spending more than we can afford now.

The Minister of Finance has said:

Canada is a young, vast country, with a tremendous capacity for growth. This budget would fuel that. These are investments in our future and they will yield great dividends. In fact, in today's low-interest rate environment, not only can we afford these investments, it would be shortsighted of us not to make them.

That it would be “short-sighted of us not to make them” is an interesting statement. I wonder if the Minister of Finance can name a time when spending more than we have was short-sighted. The Liberal government seems to believe that more spending is always necessary. Just look at the promise the Prime Minister made in 2015: that the budget would be balanced in no time, with just a couple of small deficits and then smooth sailing. The promises of responsible spending have been nothing more than hollow words.

I am going to get back to who pays. Most Canadians probably do not realize how much Canada is paying for its borrowing. Even with low interest rates, it is well over $20 billion. The Prime Minister's plan to add more to our national debt than all previous prime ministers combined will grow the interest payments to new heights.

The Prime Minister told everyone that budgets balance themselves. If he is still under this belief, let me assure him that this is not the case. When we do nothing to tackle the debt and spending, things get worse. People are told to avoid these sorts of debt traps in their personal life. The Liberals think adding historically high debt is responsible. Their plan requires Canadians to think that debt is a problem far into the future, that Canadians will be okay with giving debt to the next generation. For me, that is unacceptable.

I came to this country for a better life. I knew this was a place where people could raise a family and have their children succeed. The last thing I would want to do is hand them a debt bomb that they and their children will need to deal with.

When I talk to Markham residents, I hear the same thing. People work very hard so that their children will have a better life than they have. They do not want to set up their children for hard times.

A debt crisis always ends in hard times with either tax hikes or cuts to services, or both. The new taxes in the budget are puny compared to the spending. To raise the money needed to put a dent in the debt, the Liberals would need to double some of these taxes every year.

Liberal tax hikes make it more unaffordable to support a family. Canadians cannot afford to pay more. Some people think inflation is a solution, but that is a mistake. It is a tax on everything, and it will make it even harder to borrow money.

The other option of cutting services has been done before. In the nineties, the Liberal government, in the middle of a debt crisis, went to the bank to borrow money, but no one was interested in lending it to them. To get their books in order, the Liberals took a chainsaw to government spending. One of the things they cut was the health care spending. The effects of those cuts are still felt to this day. Does anyone think health care in Canada can take another cut? I do not.

I was shocked, like many Canadians, that health care was not a huge part of this budget. Emergency rooms across the country were stretched to their limit over the past two years. Essential surgeries were put off because hospitals were COVID-19 hot spots. It takes a long time to deal with the backlog of the procedures.

The provinces need help from the federal government to address health care, but the Liberals do not seem to care. This mess can be fixed. The way to get ahead of the debt problem is to get the spending under control now. The government cannot kick this problem down the road.

This budget and plan for the future will create more problems and make life more difficult for Canadians in the future. That is why I will be voting against this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, it is almost like déjà vu. I have heard this before from the member because it was not that long ago when he was up on a matter of privilege, arguing why it was a privilege issue. I responded in part by saying that it was not a matter of privilege, but that in fact the member could be talking about it on Bill C-30. Voila, here we are on Bill C-30 and the member is at least relevant to the debate.

Would my friend across the way not acknowledge, at the very least, that his theory is based on the fact that the government had a need to support Canadians during a pandemic by investing billions of dollars into direct support through programs like CERB and the wage subsidy program, along with a number of other programs? Is he advocating on behalf of the Conservative Party that we should not have done that?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. Let me inform you, Mr. Speaker, that you will have a much more enlightened speaker because I plan on sharing my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who, I am sure, will do a fantastic job.

From a parliamentary perspective, we live in dangerous times. I say that because I would like to take us all back to 2015 and a comment that this Prime Minister shared with Canadians. “[W]e are committed to delivering real change in the way that government works”, said the Prime Minister. He followed up with, “It means setting a higher bar for openness and transparency, something needed if this House is to regain the confidence and trust of Canadians.”

When we look at the actions of this Prime Minister today, it is profoundly obvious that this PM had absolutely zero intention of honouring those words to Canadians. In fact, as is so often the case with this Prime Minister, it is all just words. The actions are always at odds with reality. Look at where we are here with this omnibus budget bill from a Prime Minister who had promised he would not use omnibus budget bills, promised he would not use prorogation, and promised he would deliver a balanced budget, cast in stone, in 2019. He also promised openness by default.

I could go on and on, but we are not here today to debate the character of this Prime Minister. We are here to debate the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, a bill that the finance minister has repeatedly stated, if it were not to pass, would be the single greatest threat facing Canadians. Honestly, the finance minister said that multiple times in question period. Here we have a government that tells us we do not need a budget for over two years, and suddenly not having a budget is the greatest economic threat facing Canadians. What unbelievable arrogance that is.

In reality, this budget is really about furthering the Liberals' electoral chances. I would submit it that does not do so. It is not in the long-term best interests of Canadians. However, in my view, this is a Prime Minister who will always place his needs and those of his powerful friends and insiders ahead of the needs of everyday Canadians.

People should not just take my word for it, but read very carefully the many criticisms of this budget bill. They come from prominent people not accustomed to criticizing Liberal government budget bills: Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux; former Bank of Canada governors, both David Dodge and Mark Carney; and even former senior Liberal adviser Robert Asselin. They have all provided well-articulated concerns over this budget. To summarize them, ultimately this bill proposes to spend money that the government does not have to spend and, according to these critics and many other experts, does not not need to spend.

However, that is what this Prime Minister does. He believes he can spend his way out of any problem or circumstance, but that in itself creates problems. Let us look at our communities' local downtown. If they are anything like the communities in my riding, there are increasingly more help-wanted signs out there. A huge number of small and medium-sized business owners have said they cannot get people to work.

I am going to share something with this place. Recently, my Summerland office was contacted by a woman, and we will call her “Nathalie”. Nathalie is very concerned about her brother, whom we will call “Doug”. Doug has a trade. Unlike some trades, Doug got very busy during the pandemic. Last fall, Doug decided to quit his job so he could collect the CERB. Granted the system was not supposed to work that way, but it was, by design, set up so people like Doug absolutely could quit their job and still collect it. At the time, Doug told his family it was just for the winter months and he would go back to work in the spring. Over the winter months, Doug began drinking. His drinking led to the loss of his place. The family now says Doug lives in a recreational vehicle. He collects the Canada recovery benefit and spends most of the time drinking. Doug now refuses to return to the workplace. Doug's position is that he paid the government EI and taxes for years and now he is owed this money, and not working while he is collecting benefits is his way of getting even with the government.

I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone collecting benefits is in Doug's situation, but speaking with many who work with individuals in addiction and recovered, many will share privately just how damaging the CRB has been and how it has derailed many recovering addicts. The problem remains that the Liberal government has absolutely no exit plan that ultimately will help people like Doug return to the workforce.

Indeed, according to the Prime Minister, people like Doug do not exist. Some will say if only employers paid more, we would not have this problem. However, in Doug's case, he had a trade that provided net take-home pay of $60,000. Doug can make much more money returning to work, however, the $2,000 a month he collects now is enough money that Doug can choose not to work.

I come back to all those help-wanted signs. A local small business owner told me his small business could survive the pandemic, but he was less sure it could survive the government assistance programs like CRB. I am not raising this to be partisan, I am raising this because this budget by design extends all of these benefits into September and it does this by design because the Prime Minister wants to go into an election where everyone is still getting paid those benefits. He wants to use the payment of these benefits as an election issue. That is ultimately what the bill proposes; that and massive amounts of spending that even former Liberals and friendly experts have said is excessive and largely unnecessary.

However, when it comes to winning power, we know that the Prime Minister is capable of basically anything. We know from his many promises in 2015, he will say basically anything. We know from his governance, from prorogation to multiple Liberal filibusters, to being found in contempt of Parliament, he is capable of doing anything to remain in power. Indeed, Bill C-30 is just another example of this.

Is there seriously a person in this place who does not believe that Canada needs an exit plan to get Canadians back into the workforce? I am starting to think that maybe there are some who believe we can continue on this current path that the Parliamentary Budget Office has repeatedly told us is not sustainable. Do we listen? Bill C-30 suggests we are not listening. Indeed, even raising these issues is rarely done.

We all know that there are people like Doug out there who are struggling. This budget fails people like Doug. This budget fails the many small business owners who need Doug back in the workplace. Let us hope that he can rejoin the workforce. His sister Nathalie blames the government programs. She pointed out EI, as one example, never used to work this way. She asked how long can the government continue to pay people benefits that they do not qualify for. It is a fair question, yet I do not hear any member of the Liberal government ask this question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised it. Various ministers have promised to address it, but when the opposition has raised it, they never do. We all know that the EI system ultimately has to be sustainable and currently it is not sustainable. The government has no plan to address this. This should trouble all of us because ultimately we need to defend the integrity of the programs that Canadians depend on. We are collectively failing to do that.

It is just not responsible. This is ultimately what troubles me so greatly about Bill C-30. It is great for a Prime Minister trying to stay in power, however, it maximizes short-term political gain for long-term pain that will be felt by future generations of Canadians.

Somehow in this place, we have drifted away from long-term thinking, of building a foundation for the success and prosperity of future generations of Canada. Worse, we have seen this movie before, as it was the former Liberal governments that made some very difficult and unpopular decisions, but necessary decisions. Many of what I refer to as traditional Liberals, at least in my riding, wonder where the Liberal Party has gone.

Before I close, I will leave with one final note. When the finance minister introduced this budget, she told us that we must “build a more resilient Canada; better, more fair, more prosperous, and more innovative”.

We should all ask ourselves who has been governing this country for the past five years to have made Canada so unresilient, so unfair, so unprosperous and so lacking in innovation. We all know the answer to the question. This budget bill, Bill C-30, simply offers more of the same.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30.

I want to thank the member for Edmonton Centre for his incredibly compelling speech, and he did a fabulous job. As well, to follow up on his comments, all the best to you, Mr. Speaker, in the future.

As I was walking up to the House today, I was given to thought. I thought about my family, my staff, my friends and the people of Essex, and the impact that Bill C-30 would have on each and every one of them. Each of us will be affected by the bill. I want to give many thanks to my family, my staff and my constituents of Essex for the opportunity to be in this place to speak to Bill C-30.

Fifteen months ago, after the government's failure to heed the early warning signs of the pandemic ravaging Asia, Parliament was shut down for three weeks to flatten the curve. These many months later, the government's record is characterized by bad ethics, poor decision-making, undemocratic measures and huge deficits.

The government, propped up by the NDP, Bloc and Green Party, has repeatedly failed Canadians, from its early and repeated power grabs, its failure to shut down international flights in the early stages of the pandemic, its failure to secure PPE and its disastrous back-scene procurement and rollout. On top of that, we had the ill-conceived Canada student support program and the resulting WE scandal that led to the prorogation of Parliament to avoid scrutiny. For 15 months, we have seen the Liberals reward their Liberal buddies with contracts and now judicial appointments.

Only the Conservatives, as the official opposition, have stood against the Liberal excesses. The NDP has voted with the Liberals basically at every turn, even joining with them to shut down committees to help the Liberals avoid scrutiny. At a time when Canadians needed true leadership, ideology partisan interests have trumped principle.

Why am I mentioning this record in a speech on the budget? Because post-COVID, Canada needs an economic recovery plan and, yet again, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green Party alliance has failed to offer anything but shiny baubles. The record speaks for itself. The NDP-Liberal budget is a massive letdown for workers in my riding of Essex. This is not a growth budget, and it fails to put forward a plan to encourage Canada's long-term prosperity.

I have three children just entering adulthood, and my first grandchild was born just a few weeks ago. I think of families in my riding, generations that have made their home in Essex County, and I wonder if my children and their children will be able to have the things that previous generations took for granted: a well-paying job, affordable housing and saving for their children's education. I am receiving hundreds of emails from constituents who remember the Canada of my youth. They tell me that they have no heart to celebrate Canada this year. They see the writing on the wall.

Rampant corruption, unchecked, has tarnished our hallowed halls. Bill C-10 threatens our Charter of Rights, and deficit spending and high debt always leads to tax increases and program cuts down the road. It is an open question if we will be able to protect our social safety net and our senior's pensions, who should be able to enjoy their retirement worry-free.

As the government continues to print money against Canada's GDP, as Conservatives predicted, inflation has risen to 3.6%. The cost of housing has soared and, as I said previously, putting it out of reach for many young families. As the cost of living rises, so does the cost for basics, like food, which hurts the lowest-income Canadians and seniors on fixed incomes the most. The government spending today borrows against our children's future. It is not a cliché; it is a simple reality that everyone who has a personal or household budget to manage understands.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of the Liberal spending in the budget will not stimulate jobs or create economic growth. The Conservatives support getting help to those who have been hit the hardest by the failure of the Liberals to create jobs. In fact, the Liberal government has spent more and delivered less than any other G7 country. Canada's Conservatives were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal, that would safely reopen the economy and get Canadians back to work.

It is very clear that the Liberal-NDP budget was more about partisan politics than creating jobs or growing our economy. With their uncontrolled spending, the Liberals made it clear that they had no plan to return to a balanced budget. Throughout the pandemic, the Conservatives have made emergency support programs better for Canadians.

Alas, unemployed Canadians are hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed are hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy. They were let down.

Layoffs at the Fiat Chrysler plant in Windsor mean that expectant mothers will see their maternity benefits cut, with all the money going out the door in income support. What has the government done for them?

Small business owners have been devastated by repeat lockdowns. Many have closed their doors permanently. Many are hanging on by the slimmest of margins.

Gyms like Xanadu in my riding have petitioned the government for ongoing aid. I have stood in the House for them. It will take months for them to recover, if they do at all.

Many hair salons and barbershops, many of them owned and operated by women supporting their families, do not qualify for business support.

Travel advisers went 15 months without any revenue. What does this budget do for them? Absolutely nothing.

Manufacturers in my riding whose entire business model is based on cross-border transactions have experienced losses of major contracts because the government did not see fit to deem them essential despite repeated appeals to their government. It is a tone-deaf government that cannot not grasp the concept that we cannot export goods without the free movement of the people who make and sell them. The effects of this will be felt for years. It will take many years for manufacturers to get back to where they were.

While they brag about the numbers, the Liberals fail to understand that the stuff manufacturers are working on now was negotiated two years ago, before the pandemic. Manufacturing is 13% of Canada's GDP. This sector is the largest contributor of taxable income. In Essex and Windsor, 54,000 jobs are represented in this industry. Eighty-five per cent of those goods produced go to the United States of America.

Manufacturers have done a good job. They were mandated to keep open and they did everything required, yet the government did not see fit to recognize their good work. When I first raised this issue with the minister in the House, and other government officials appearing before the special committee on Canada-U.S. economic relations, the government's response revealed its total ignorance and outright indifference.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the loved ones who have been separated by the Canada-U.S. border closure. Even when changes were made to broaden the definitions, many were left out or could not afford to quarantine for 14 days. To make matters worse, the government then added quarantine hotels and exorbitant costs with unsafe substandard care. The human toll has been deep. Here are but a couple of examples: grandparents unable to meet their grandchildren for the first time; parents looking to be with their son, graduating after 10 years.

The simple fact is that this budget does nothing to secure the long-term prosperity for Canadians. It does nothing to help my excellent riding of Essex. Canada's Conservatives got us out of the last recession. Canadians who are worried about their future know that we can and will do it again.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for the great work he does.

Day in and day out, all I hear from the Liberals' side is that they are supporting Canadians, that they have Canadians' backs and that everything is a high priority, but what we do not see in Bill C-30 is the supports for people with disabilities, except for a three-year study on who has to live on $1,200 a month. That is inadequate. Then, we find out the Liberals want to extend the CERB with Bill C-30, but they did not tell us the story. They want to give us the rates that people with disabilities are living on and to reduce it to that low below poverty. Then, we have the great work they do in supporting seniors, but they only want to support half the seniors.

Does my friend believe this is the way we are supporting Canadians and having their backs, or does he feel it is very shameful, what the government would implement?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the traditional, unceded territory of the Qayqayt First Nation and of the Coast Salish peoples.

I am rising today in the context of the final days of Parliament. This is perhaps the final speech that I will make in this Parliament. The Prime Minister has made no secret about his deep desire to go to elections as quickly as possible, and the rumours appear to show that by the end of the summer we will be in an election.

In this pandemic Parliament over the last 15 months, it is important to review what the NDP has been able to achieve, where the government has clearly fallen short and where I believe Canadians' aspirations are in building back better after this pandemic.

We pay tribute every day to our first responders, our front-line workers and our health care workers who have been so courageous and so determined during this pandemic. Whenever we speak of it, we also think of the over 26,000 Canadians who have died so far during the pandemic. We know that it is far from over. Although health care workers are working as hard as they possibly can, some of the variants are disturbing in their ability to break through and affect even people who have been fully vaccinated.

We need to make sure that measures continue, because we need to make sure that people are protected and supported for whatever comes in the coming months. It is in that context that the NDP and the member for Burnaby South, our leader, have been so deeply disturbed by the government's plan to massively slash the emergency response benefit that Canadians depend on.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadian families are fed through the emergency response benefit, yet in budget Bill C-30, the government slashes a benefit that was above the poverty line to one that goes dramatically below the poverty line. This is something that the Prime Minister wanted from the very beginning. We recall that 15 months ago, the Prime Minister was talking about $1,000 a month for an emergency response benefit. He talked about $1,000 a month for supports. It was clearly inadequate. That was why the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushed back to make sure that the benefit was adequate to put food on the table and keep roofs over their heads of most Canadians, raising it to $2,000 a month or $500 a week.

We did not stop there, of course. We pushed so that benefits would be provided to students as well. Students were struggling to pay for their education and often struggling to find jobs. We pushed for those supports. We pushed for supports for seniors and people with disabilities. Regarding people with disabilities, I am profoundly disappointed that the government never chose to do the work to input every person with a disability to a database nationally. When they file their tax returns, they should be coded as people with disabilities. The government refused to do that, so the benefit to people with disabilities only went to about one-third of people with disabilities in this country, leaving most of them behind.

We pushed as well to ensure that the wage subsidy was in place to maintain jobs. This is something that we saw in other countries, such as Denmark and France, always with clear protections so that the money was not misused for dividends or for executive bonuses. We pressed for that to happen in Canada with those same protections. We succeeded in getting the 75% wage subsidy. The government refused to put into place the measures to protect Canadians from abuse so, as we know, profitable corporations spent billions of dollars on dividends and big executive bonuses at the same time as they received the wage subsidy from the federal government.

We pushed for a rent subsidy for small businesses as well. I know the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Burnaby South and a number of other members of the NDP caucus pushed hard to make sure that those rent subsidies and supports were in place. The initial program was clearly inadequate. We kept pushing until we eventually got a rent subsidy that more Canadian businesses could use.

We are proud of that track record of making sure people were being taken care of, and this is part of our responsibility as parliamentarians. Some observers noted that NDP MPs are the worker bees of Parliament. We take that title proudly, because we believe in standing up and fighting for people.

Where did the government go then by itself, once you put aside the NDP pressure and the fact the government often needed NDP support to ensure measures went through Parliament? We were able to leverage that to make sure programs benefited people, but there were a number of programs the government put forward with no help from the NDP, most notably the $750 billion in liquidity supports for Canada's big banks, which was an obscene and irresponsible package.

The $750 billion was provided through a variety of federal institutions with absolutely no conditions whatsoever. There was no obligation to reduce interest rates to zero, as many credit unions did. I am a member of two credit unions: Vancouver City Savings and Community Savings in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Both of these dropped interest rates to zero at the height of the crisis.

Many of the credit unions that are democratically run understood the importance of not profiting or profiteering from this pandemic, but the big banks did not. They received $750 billion in liquidity supports with no obligation to reduce interest rates to zero and no obligation to remove fees or service fees.

We have seen unbelievable amounts of profiteering through this pandemic. Those massive public supports were used to create the space for $60 billion in pandemic profits. To ensure the profits were increased even more, the big banks increased service fees. Often when they deferred mortgages, they tacked on fees and penalties and increased interest. They acted in a deplorable way with free agency from the federal government, because the federal government refused to attach any conditions to the massive and unprecedented bailout package.

We know from history that past federal governments acted differently. Past federal governments put in place strict laws against profiteering. They made sure there was a real drive to ensure the ultrarich paid their fair share of taxes. We got through the Second World War because we put in place an excess profits tax that ensured companies could not benefit from the misery of others. This led to unprecedented prosperity coming out of the Second World War.

This is not the case with the current government. It is not the case with this Prime Minister. Instead of any measures at all against profiteering, it was encouraged, and we have seen Canada's billionaires increase their wealth by $80 billion so far during the pandemic. We have seen $60 billion in profits in the banking sector, largely fuelled by public monies, public supports and liquidity supports.

We have also seen the government's steadfast refusal to put in place any of the measures other governments have used to rebalance the profiteering that has occurred during the pandemic. There is no wealth tax and no pandemic profits tax. When we look at the government's priorities when it acts on its own, with the NDP removed from the equation and all the measures we fought for during this pandemic, it is $750 billion in liquidity support for Canada's big banks with no conditions. It is no break at all from Canada's billionaires reaping unprecedented increases in wealth during this pandemic. It is no wealth tax, it is no pandemic profits tax and it is also a steadfast refusal to crack down on overseas tax havens.

Let us add up where the government went on its own over the course of the last 15 months. There was $750 billion in liquidity supports for the banks and $25 billion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us goes offshore every year to the overseas tax havens of wealthy Canadians and profitable corporations. There was $10 billion in a wealth tax that the government refused to put into place: That is $10 billion every year that could serve so many purposes and meet so many Canadians' needs.

However, the government steadfastly refuses to put in place that fiscal measure that so many other countries have put into place. It is a refusal to put in place a pandemic profits tax that would have raised nearly $10 billion over the course of the last 15 months.

We are talking about a figure of close to $800 billion in various measures that the government rolled out, or refused to in any way curb, that could have been making a huge difference in meeting Canadians' needs. When Canadians ask, as they look forward to a time, hopefully soon, when we will be able to rebuild this country in a more equitable way that leaves nobody behind, we need to look at why the government steadfastly refuses to put these measures into place. It is not because there is not the fiscal capacity. We have surely seen that.

I need only add the incredible amount of money the government has poured into the Trans Mountain pipeline: According to the PBO again, it is $12.5 billion so far and counting. It is an amount that keeps rising, with construction costs that are currently either committed to or will be committed to in the coming months. It cost $4.5 billion for the company itself, which was far more than the sticker price. Add those numbers up and we are close to $20 billion that the government is spending on a pipeline that even the International Energy Agency says is not in the public's interests or in the planet's interests. That is nearly $20 billion. We have to remember that the government and the Prime Minister came up with that money overnight, when the private sector pulled out of the project because it was not financially viable. Within 24 hours, the Prime Minister and the finance minister at the time announced that they would come up with the purchase price to buy the pipeline. Subsequently, they have been pumping money into this pipeline without any scant understanding of or precaution to the financial and the environmental implications.

The government has proved that it can come up with big bucks when it wants to, but Canadians are left asking the following questions.

Why can Canadians not have public universal pharmacare? The government turned down and voted out the NDP bill that would have established the Canada pharmacare act on the same conditions as the Canada Health Act. The Liberal members voted against that, yet we know that nearly 10 million Canadians have no access to their medication or struggle to pay for it. A couple of million Canadians, according to most estimates, are not able to pay for their medication. Hundreds die, according to the Canadian Nurses Association, because they do not have access to or cannot afford to pay for their medication. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that Canada would save close to $5 billion by putting public universal pharmacare into place. Of course, the government has completely refused to implement its commitment from the 2019 election. The Liberals will make some other promise in the coming election that the Prime Minister wants to have.

Why can we not have public universal pharmacare? The answer, of course, is that there is no reason why we cannot. It is cost effective. It makes a difference in people's lives. It adds to our quality of life, and it adds to our international competitiveness because it takes a lot of the burden of drug plans off of small companies. The reason we cannot have pharmacare is not financial: It is political. It is the Liberal government that steadfastly refuses to put it into place. The Liberals keep it as a carrot that they dangle to the electorate once every election or two. They have been doing that now for a quarter century, but refuse to put it into place.

Why can we not have safe drinking water for all Canadian communities? The government members would say it is complicated and tough. It was not complicated and tough for the Trans Mountain bailout. It was not complicated or tough for the massive amounts of liquidity supports, unprecedented in Canadian history or any other country's history, that the government lauded on Canada's big banks to shore up their profits during the pandemic. It certainly has not been a question of finances, with $25 billion in tax dollars going offshore every year to overseas tax havens.

Therefore, the issue of why we cannot have safe drinking water I think is a very clear political question. There is no political will, as the member for Nunavut said so eloquently in her speech a few days ago.

Let us look at why we do not have a right to housing in this country. We know we did after the Second World War. Because an excess profits tax had been put into place and we had very clear measures against profiteering, we were able to launch an unprecedented housing program of 300,000 public housing units across the country, homes like those right behind me where I am speaking to the House from. They were built across the country in a rapid fashion. In the space of three years, 300,000 units were built because we knew there were women and men in the service coming back from overseas and we needed to make sure that housing was available. Why do we not have a right to housing? Because the Liberals said no to that as well. However, the reality is we could very much meet the needs of Canadians with respect to affordable housing if the banks and billionaires were less of a priority and people were a greater priority for the current government.

Let us look at access to post-secondary education. The amount the Canadian Federation of Students put out regarding free tuition for post-secondary education is a net amount of about $8 billion to the federal government every year. I pointed out that the pandemic profits tax is about that amount, yet the government refuses to implement it. Students are being forced to pay for their student loans at this time because the government refused to extend the moratorium on student loan payments during a pandemic. Once again, banks, billionaires and the ultrarich are a high priority for the government, but people not so much.

Let us look at long-term care. The NDP put forward a motion in this Parliament, which the Liberals turned down, to take the profit and profiteering out of long-term care and put in place stable funding right across the country to ensure high standards in long-term care. We believe we need an expanded health care system that includes pharmacare and dental care. The motion to provide dental care for lower-income Canadians who do not have access to it was turned down by the Liberals just a few days ago. It would have ensured that long-term care would be governed by national standards and federal funding so that seniors in this country in long-term care homes are treated with the respect they deserve. The government again said it could not do that. Once again, the banks, billionaires and the ultrarich are a high priority, yet seniors, who have laboured all their lives for their country, provided support in their community and contributed so much are not a high priority for the government.

Let us look at transportation. The bus sector across this country is so important for the safety and security of people moving from one region of the country to the other, yet we saw the bus and transportation services gutted, and the federal government is refusing to put in place the same kind of national network for buses that we have for trains. In a country as vast as Canada, with so many people who struggle to get from one region to the other for important things like medical appointments because they do not have access to a vehicle is something that should absolutely be brought to bear, yet the government refuses to look at the issue because banks, billionaires and the ultrarich are a high priority.

Finally, let us look at clean energy. We know we need to transition to a clean energy economy. We have seen billions of dollars go to oil and gas CEOs, but the government is simply unprepared to make investments into clean energy. I contrast that vividly with the nearly $20 billion it is showering on the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is for a political cause rather than something that makes good sense from an economic or environmental point of view. It is willing to throw away billions of dollars in the wrong places, but we believe that money needs to be channelled through to Canadians to meet their needs. That is certainly what we will be speaking about right across the length and breadth of this land in this coming election.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague and seatmate, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, is a tough act to follow. Since he was a teacher, he knows that repetition is the key to success, and that is what we need to do. My husband, who works in advertising, would say the same thing, so that is what I am going to do today.

It is with excitement for the end of the year that I rise today to speak to Bill C-30 at report stage. Many of my colleagues and I have said it before, so the House already knows that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill to implement certain measures in the 2021 budget.

However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I want to remind the House that we first voted against budget 2021 because the federal government was not responding to our two main requests, which remain essential.

Before the House adjourns for what might be an indeterminate period of time, I want to reiterate those requests. First, the Government of Quebec and the Canadian provinces are formally requesting adequate, recurrent health funding. Second, seniors are calling for an increase in old age security for those aged 65 and up, a request brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.

The government continues to ignore Quebec's request. I know because I recently met with many elected members and employees at the National Assembly of Quebec, who speak to me about this regularly. This is a unanimous request from the provinces, Quebec, the National Assembly, and even the House of Commons, which adopted a Bloc Québécois motion last December that called on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers.

The government refuses to increase the current level of health transfers from 22% to 35%. Instead, Bill C‑30 offers only a one-time increase in health transfers, as announced last March. At the time, I showed that the amounts were clearly insufficient.

In this speech, which will quite probably be my last before the summer break, I will address our key requests for health and for seniors, as well as our requests for businesses and business owners. I will finish with a few wishes for the future of this Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois has made sensible choices in the best interest of Quebeckers. The deficit announced in budget 2021 is lower than expected: $354 billion instead of $382 billion. The difference happens to be $28 billion, the exact amount that Quebec and the provinces are asking for. With the government clearly gearing up for a massive spending spree, by refusing to increase transfers, Ottawa is making a political choice, not a budgetary choice, to the detriment of everyone's health.

The saddest part, however, is that Bill C‑30 is strictly an election budget. It merely repeats the Liberals' 2019 campaign promise to seniors to increase old age security, but only for those aged 75 and over and by only $766 per year, or $63.80 per month. This increase, which will not take effect until 2022, is not enough for seniors or for the Bloc Québécois. More importantly, it leaves those aged 65 to 74 out in the cold, which is practically half of the current beneficiaries of old age security. Let us also not forget the one-time $500 payment to made in August 2021, also only to those 75 and older.

That is why I continue to keep talking about our support for seniors. 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 and that younger seniors can just go to work.

For that reason, I am currently sponsoring petition e-3421, which was put online by Samuel Lévesque on behalf of his grandparents. Several seniors' groups have also sent letters in support of this request that comes from the entire House, except the Liberals, who continue to be isolated.

Ottawa is not doing as we asked and is creating two classes of seniors. Seniors' groups and seniors want to know why only seniors 75 and older are getting this increase and why it only starts in 2022. There are testimonials posted on FADOQ's web site showing that the lives of seniors 65 to 74 can also be difficult, and that they have needs that cannot wait until they turn 75.

For the Liberals, vulnerable people 65 and over do not deserve their attention. For the Liberals, insecurity only begins at 75. Naturally, we are not against the idea of a good number of seniors, about 50%, receiving the help they need, which is what Bill C‑30 would do.

In terms of the economy, I am elated to know that Bill C‑30 has finally rejected the foundation for creating a pan-Canadian securities regulatory regime, which the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers strongly opposed. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette for this important win and his hard work on this file. Ottawa could not be allowed to centralize securities regulation in Toronto. This is a big win for Quebec.

The Quebec National Assembly adopted four unanimous motions calling on the federal government to abandon this idea. Seldom had we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose a government initiative. A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses.

As we have seen with the pandemic, globalized supply chains are fragile and make us entirely dependent on other countries. We must develop our own chains and restore economic nationalism. Some measures in the budget are good, and we support them and support implementing them. For example, the budget will extend some essential, albeit imperfect, assistance programs, such as the wage subsidy and rent relief, until September 25, 2021. This is a positive because businesses, especially the ones back home that made good use of these programs, need some predictability in the programs they will have access to in the coming months. I should point out that this extension comes with a gradual decline in the amounts provided, which is a concern.

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that our businesses have access to programs that meet their needs for as long as they need them, particularly in the sectors that will take more time to get back to normal, such as tourism and small- and large-scale live events. These sectors are very important to Shefford, which relies on Tourisme Montérégie and Tourism Eastern Townships, and, of course, on many cultural events, such as the Festival international de la chanson de Granby. I could go on.

The bill also introduces some measures to combat tax evasion, but it does not go far enough. The government is presenting these measures as a massive campaign against corporate tax evasion, but in reality, these are just some highly specific, minor changes connected to ongoing litigation. The fight against tax havens will have to wait, even though it is a very important aspect of building tax fairness to enhance social justice.

Another thing to highlight is the creation of a new hiring subsidy program for businesses that are reopening. It could be useful. Bill C-30 would create this new program to encourage businesses to rehire their staff. We know that the hiring subsidy will come into effect in November 2021. Businesses will then have the choice of applying for either the hiring subsidy or the existing wage subsidy, whichever works out better for them. These are measures that could be very useful.

Since my time is running out, I will try to cover everything quickly. I have a wish list. I would have liked to see more investments in social and affordable housing in this budget. This problem continues to affect my riding in particular, especially the city of Granby, which is otherwise considered a great place to settle down. Businesses in my region are experiencing a labour shortage and need housing to attract workers with families so they can try to recruit them, but they have nowhere to house them.

There are also some bills that will not receive royal assent. That really saddens me. I would have like to see the Émilie Sansfaçon bill passed to allow people who are suffering from a critical illness to have 50 weeks of leave instead of 15 weeks. It is a matter of recovering with dignity.

I would have also liked to see the House pass my colleague from Manicouagan's Bill C-253 regarding pension protection and for it to receive royal assent. People who worked hard their whole lives have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This bill would help them age with dignity.

I would have liked a budget with more support for our farmers. That is so important in my riding, which is part of Quebec's pantry. I would have liked to see a greater willingness to help the next generation of farmers. I want to point out that, right now, farmers are suffering because of frost and a lack of precipitation. They need better risk management programs and more precise traceability programs. Farmers are also feeling the effects of climate change.

I would have also liked to see tougher environmental measures for a greener recovery. For example, the government should invest just as much in forestry as it does in the oil industry. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and our political party established a comprehensive plan to focus more on renewable natural resources to get out of the crisis and to drive our regions' economies.

In closing, I would like to add one last thing. It goes beyond the budget, but as the status of women critic, I cannot give my last speech before the summer break without mentioning the crises that have been affecting women in particular since I arrived in the House. We commemorated the 30th anniversary of the École Polytechnique attack, but the issue of better gun control has still not been resolved because too many people are not satisfied with Bill C‑22. Femicides are on the rise. There have been 13 just since the beginning of the year. Quebec is calling for transfers with no conditions and fewer delays to provide better funding for women's shelters. Quebec knows what to do. There are also the cases of assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Deschamps report needs to be implemented.

In short, there is still a lot of work to be done. Let us reach out to one another and work together. The federal government's paternalism and interference needs to stop. We need to take action. There is still so much to be done.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for giving me their consent; it was very nice of them.

This morning, it seems to me that I will be repeating things we have been saying for a while now. Evidently, it takes a lot of repetition for the message to sink in.

I will start by talking about health transfers.

Of course, it is important to pass Bill C-30 swiftly, that is to say, before the session ends, because, among other things, the support measures need to be extended. We all agree on that point. However, there are significant flaws.

The main idea in my speech is that the federal government wants to hold all the power and be omnipotent. It wants to exert its dominance over the other levels of government and over Canadians. The health care transfers are a darned good example.

Why is the current government, the Prime Minister, refusing to give 28 billion dollars annually to the provinces and Quebec, who are all asking for the same thing? If it did so, after three to five years the health care problems in the provinces, territories and Quebec would mostly be resolved, which would allow us to better manage the health system. As a result, the provinces, territories and Quebec would no longer need to ask the federal government to kindly come to the rescue by giving them a few billion dollars.

Politically speaking, it is much better and more relevant and advantageous to hold a big press conference, with a big smile and a sunny disposition, and look like the great saviour. We are offered only a billion dollars, and told to come back on our knees and beg for more again next year, because Ottawa wants to hold on to that power. The unreasonable spending power is the evil side of the Canadian federation, and so is the unreasonable sharing of taxation powers: 50% of Quebeckers' tax dollars go to Ottawa, but Ottawa does not take on 50% of the responsibilities. That is the problem.

That is one of the themes I wanted to address in my speech, but I will now move on to something else.

Old age security comes to mind. Why are the Liberals increasing old age security? They probably want to hold on to that as a nice election promise. Government members are always waiting for the next election campaign. FADOQ members and seniors' groups are paying attention to the government's promises. The benevolent government tells them not to worry and promises to take care of seniors if it is re-elected. What a crock.

The government has an opportunity to do this now. All the opposition parties are on board. We were calling for this before the pandemic began, not now because of the pandemic. Things were not going great before the pandemic, and the situation is much worse now.

Every day, or nearly every day, people tell me that they received an adjustment of $1.59. It is a slap in the face. People ask me what we are doing and whether we are still delivering the message. That is why, with every darned speech I make on the budget, I bring these things up. I do this work for my constituents.

I do not want to blame anyone, but I would like to offer members of the House some food for thought. Sometimes I get the impression that members may have forgotten the initial commitment we make. I invite each and every one of us to remember our first election campaign, even though some members have been here for 25 or 30 years. That is a nod to Mr. Plamondon, who has never forgotten why he is here. There are others who have been here for a long time. Let us not forget—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government moved immediately, within four days of the pandemic hitting, to provide an unprecedented $750 billion in liquidity supports for Canada's big banks, and, of course, we have seen record profits of $60 billion so far during the pandemic.

However, at the same time, with Bill C-30, we are seeing significant cuts in the CRB, ultimately from the $500 a week the NDP fought for down to $300 a week, below the poverty line for all those Canadians who still need the CRB over the coming months to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to simply explain why the government is slashing benefits on which Canadians so urgently rely.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come.

This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus.

From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus.

It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community.

I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad.

Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives.

There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee.

The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate.

If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing.

We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast.

This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today.

The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to.

If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections.

In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times.

Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate.

I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies.

We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with.

We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business.

Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation.

Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult.

As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts.

We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Mark D'Amore]

There are votes on the report stage of Bill C-30, so I believe there are two.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 4:35 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-30.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

The Economy

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to job losses in the past couple of months, she ignores the fact that after the previous wave, we actually saw more than 560,000 jobs created. When she is talking about the specific measures that are designed to help women take part in this economic rebound, I will acknowledge women have disproportionately been impacted.

That is specifically why we have made great game-changing investments in child care to allow more women to enter the workforce. It is why we made new investments to encourage women entrepreneurship to help kick-start economic growth. It is why we are going to continue to put supports in place that have undergone a gender-based analysis so we can understand the impact of our investments and how they impact women and men differently.

With respect to the hon. member, the best thing she can do, if she wants to support women's participation in this recovery, is to get out of the way, stop obstructing Bill C-30 so these supports can reach the people who need them.

Government Programs

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the CRB is part of a comprehensive set of emergency and recovery measures to support Canadian workers. Through the CRB, Canadians can have access of up to 50 weeks of benefit.

Yes, the first 42 weeks are at $500, and the last eight weeks are at $300, but they also have access to more flexible EI benefits and access to the wage subsidy. All these other programs are in jeopardy if this House does not pass Bill C-30. That is what is at stake. Our entire recovery infrastructure is at stake if we do not get together and support Bill C-30.

Employment Insurance

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this pandemic, that is exactly the kind of worker we have been trying to help, whether it be through the CERB or through the CRB.

Bill C-30 has measures in it that will extend the CRB, that will help out businesses and that will help out employers who want to retain their employees. What we can do, as a Parliament, for this country, is support Bill C-30, get money to workers and get money to business so that we can all get through this pandemic.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and speak to the government's budget. I have been spending a lot of time talking to people in my constituency about where they think this country should go coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. What does the future look like? What are the things we need to be focusing on as we move forward as a country?

There are three big priorities that I am hearing from my constituents in terms of their concerns of the direction of the government. Their concerns are around rising government debt. Their concerns are around the failure to support the energy sector and the role that the energy sector will play in our economy going forward. The third concern I hear a great deal about in my riding right now is freedom of speech and attacks on freedom of speech that we hear from the government.

With respect to Bill C-30, the government's budget bill, let us zero in on the first of those two points: government debt and the energy sector. As we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, people are looking to see what kinds of plans are in place to allow our economy to grow and prosper and be firing on all cylinders again. In order to do, that we need strong public finances. In order to do, that we need to have support for our key natural resource and other sectors that really drive prosperity.

We have to have sound public finance and we have to have revenue coming in to government coffers as a result of jobs being created, opportunities being created in our key sectors. There is a great deal of concern about the public debt that has been run up over the course of this pandemic, but it did not start with the pandemic. Let us remember, when the Prime Minister took office, we had a balanced budget. Canada had been through the global financial crisis. We ran deficits during those years, but Canada was back in a balanced budget position in 2015.

In fact, over the course of the tenure of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio had gone down. We had been through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Over the course of the tenure of that prime minister, through those incredibly difficult circumstances, the debt-to-GDP ratio had gone down.

We had a prime minister coming in and saying, “the good times will last forever, do not worry about it, the budget will balance itself, so we can run modest deficits”. Recall that 2015 election campaign, three $10-billion deficits followed by a balanced budget in year four: that was the promise made by the Prime Minister. Teeny, tiny deficits, $10-billion deficits for three years followed by a balanced budget.

What happened? In the first year under finance minister Bill Morneau, the government had a deficit that essentially ate up its promised deficit allotment for the three years all in one year. The Prime Minister had not foreseen perhaps, or maybe he did and just did not tell us, that when opening the floodgates with money for everything, money for this and money for that and we do not have to worry about raising the revenue for it, that can become a bottomless pit. We have seen over time this bottomless pit of willingness to go into debt get deeper and deeper. Instead of three years of $10-billion deficits and then a balanced budget, we had four years in the order of about $30-billion deficits. During relatively good years, the government ran up another $100 billion worth of debt.

Part of the reason we need to have strong public finances is to preserve that capacity during challenging circumstances to run deficits. In the midst of a global financial crisis as we faced in 2008-09, in the face of the pandemic as we dealt with in this Parliament, it is very often necessary to have some degree of deficit spending. However, if we are running deficits already prior to that period and then go further into deficit, we increase our risk of a long-term debt crisis. Certainly we run up massive amounts of more debt that have to be paid off at some point.

The government's long-term fiscal plan coming out of this pandemic involves very large deficits in perpetuity. There is no plan for us to ever get back at any point, even to the $10-billion figure that the Liberals talked about when they ran in 2015. The long-term plan is to spend more that we have every single year.

We have different parties in the House with different approaches to spending. Conservatives believe that it is important for us to move toward a balanced budget—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to underscore today the importance of National Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada. We have much to reflect upon and much to do in terms of the justice that is required for true and meaningful national reconciliation.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus have been pushing for supports that can really make a difference in people's lives. In the beginning, the Prime Minister proposed initial supports for the pandemic that were barely $1,000 a month. That is far below the poverty line, and it was the serious proposal by the Prime Minister. Members will recall that the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus pushed very hard to get that amount above poverty levels, above dire levels. We understood the magnitude of the pandemic and the impacts that were being felt in people's lives, so we pushed for an adequate level of support and ultimately they got $2,000 a month through the CERB, which became the CRB.

It is to our utmost dismay that we are now debating a bill that takes us back to where the Prime Minister originally wanted to go, with barely over $1,000 a month for people struggling to make ends meet during the pandemic who are unable to work because their businesses have closed. Whole sectors, including the tourism sector, have repeatedly raised concerns about the fact that the pandemic is not over yet and that there is no place for a victory lap. Indeed, the variants we are seeing are indicating, in some countries and regions, a disturbing number of new cases. In fact, we are seeing this even in the case of individuals who have been vaccinated with two doses.

People are subject to these variants, which are disturbingly starting to creep up in various parts of our planet and in some parts of our country, yet the government has persisted from the very beginning, with a budget announcement and now with Bill C-30, in slashing the benefits that Canadians so vitally depend on. They need those benefits to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads and often to pay for medication because the government broke its promise to put in place public universal pharmacare. However, we still have the situation where the government continues to insist that slashing benefits to below the poverty line is somehow in the best interests of Canadians. This is something the New Democrats have raised from the very beginning and continue to raise as a broad concern. As the variants disturbingly start to make progress across the country, this should be a concern for the Prime Minister and the government.

There are other aspects of this bill that the NDP has raised broad concerns about. One is seniors, who often live below the poverty line. They will not be given an OAS increase unless they are 75 and over, even though we know the poverty rate among seniors who are 65 to 75. That is another measure that makes no sense at all. We raised this at committee and offered amendments, but the government continues to refuse to do the right thing and put in place a broad level of OAS support that lifts seniors up, regardless of their age, and does not create two classes of seniors.

Broadly, our biggest concern with Bill C-30 has been the lack of vision in how we get through the pandemic and rebuild afterward. As my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, has pointed out, there is no wealth tax, there is no pandemic profits tax and there are no concrete measures against tax havens. Despite the plethora of documentation showing that Canadians and profitable corporations are taking their profits overseas, which is well documented in the Panama papers, the Paradise papers, the Bahamas papers and the Isle of Man scam, the government has not, after six years, brought a single charge against any of the Canadians or profitable Canadian companies guilty of tax evasion. Despite the fact that the information is freely available to the public, not a single time has it said that this is wrong and we should do something about it.

It strikes me as incredibly hypocritical for the government to say that it restored some of the cuts to the CRA and that is all it needs to do, when we have databases with the names of thousands of Canadians and profitable Canadian corporations and the government has refused to do a single thing about this issue. It has not charged a single Canadian. It has not charged a single profitable Canadian corporation.

As members know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated how serious this is. It is something that costs Canadians, in terms of tax dollars, an astounding $25 billion a year. Addressing the lack of a wealth tax, the lack of a pandemic profits tax and the refusal to take action against tax havens would make such a profound difference in our quality of life. We are talking about $25 billion to $40 billion annually that would be available to provide supports for seniors, for students and for people with disabilities, and to broaden our education system. We could lock in place public universal pharmacare. We could put in place dental care, which my colleague from St. John's East proposed and the Liberals voted against just a few days ago.

Today, on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we are talking about the fact that there are dozens and dozens of Canadian indigenous communities that do not even have safe drinking water, yet the government continues to say that it cannot do anything about the issue because it would cost too much. The reality, as members know, is quite different. The reality is that the government seems to rely on providing supports to the ultrarich. It does it with impunity and does it regularly, and it does not take care of the rest of Canadians, who have real, meaningful needs that have not been addressed by this bill, nor by government action over the last six years.

I can tell members about the heart of the housing affordability crisis in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and in my riding. In that context, in the two communities I proudly represent, New Westminster and Burnaby, housing costs have spiralled out of control. However, the government has done very little about this. It makes noise about having contributed in some way to building housing units, but the B.C. government has built more new housing units than the rest of the country put together. The federal government made a small contribution to that, but it has tried to take credit for a program that was put in place by the B.C. government. This is another measures that could make a substantial difference in the quality of life of Canadians, yet the government refuses to implement it.

The member of Parliament for Nunavut did a housing tour showing, in vivid and appalling detail, the housing crisis in Nunavut and in the north, yet the government has not acted. It has refused to take the actions that would make a difference in the quality of life of indigenous communities and throughout northern Canada. It is perplexing to say the least that a government that could have put in place the tools to make a difference in people's lives has chosen not to do that. The government could have made substantial investments in this budget and with this budget implementation act, but it has refused to do it.

To add to that, I will come back, in a circular way, to my initial argument. The Liberals are cutting the emergency response benefit at the most critical time. Canadians who have tried to get through the last 15 months and have managed to survive thanks to the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, which pushed for a CERB that was above the poverty line, are now seeing, looming on the horizon, a government that wants to lower the emergency response benefit to below the poverty line. That is unacceptable, and we will continue to push the government to do the right thing and not cut the emergency response benefit.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that during the pandemic inequalities have increased. The ultrarich are becoming richer than ever and those who need help are still struggling to get by. However, we do not see a wealth tax or a pandemic profiteering tax in this budget bill, Bill C-30. In fact, the government has opted to do more consultation in tackling the problem of tax havens.

Does the member think that this is the right approach, or does he think the NDP's proposal to bring forward a wealth tax and a profiteering tax at this time is the right way to go?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join in the debate, once again, in the House.

However, from what I am hearing in the media, and the rumours around Ottawa, we very well may be facing an election in the coming months. As this may be my last speech prior to that election, I want to share some brief words of thanks to the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot for the honour to be their voice in Canada's Parliament over the last year and a half or so.

As we have faced an unprecedented time on so many fronts and the need for collaboration and to hold the government to account as a member of the opposition, it has been a true honour. I look forward to life getting back to normal. Alberta plans to open for the summer, with the vast majority of COVID restrictions being lifted on July 1. It is an exciting prospect for Albertans as we look forward to getting back to normal.

Even though Parliament is scheduled to rise in a few days, I look forward to continuing to fight in every way possible for the good people of east central Alberta and Battle River—Crowfoot for whom I have the honour and privilege of serving.

I am rising on debate on the Liberal's budget, an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, which the Liberals promised to never do. When a Liberal parliamentary secretary was asked that very question on Friday, he said in effect that this was different because it was a budget bill. I have asked a number of questions and on this and, quite frankly, I have not received much response to them. This bill covers a wide swath of things that, yes, were promised in the much-delayed budget that was introduced a number of months ago, but it also includes some other aspects, such as an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, a change to the gas tax fund and a few other things, which I will dive into in more detail.

However, I would like to address one concern I increasingly hear from constituents, and that is the attitude to which this current Liberal government has approached the legislative agenda and the way it has governed the country. I had a constituent give me a very apt description that I would like to share with members about the rhetoric that has been coming out of the Liberal benches as of late, and it is simply this.

The government is quick to blame the opposition for all its failures, which I think we have been very effective at articulating how absurd that is. Had it not been for the opposition, Canada would be in a much worse spot when it comes to COVID relief programs. The third time is the charm with respect to legislation that has had to be repaired several times. The fact is that the opposition has been exposing many of the areas of mismanagement and very troubling trends related to the approach that the Liberals have taken to government accountability and ethics.

These last couple of weeks, in particular, the government House leader, other Liberal members and the Prime Minister in his press conferences, who would never say this in the House of Commons because he would be held to account on it, have effectively said that it is the Conservatives who have been obstructionists, that it somehow is the opposition's fault that the government cannot get anything accomplished.

A constituent shared with me an analogy that I will share with members. It is a bit like students, after having received the syllabus for the school year, coming upon the night before the deadline for a major assignment at the end of the course and all of a sudden realizing they had lot of work to do but did very little or nothing and now they have a choice: They can either admit their failures or they can blame, pivot and make excuses. The Liberals have chosen to do the latter by blaming the Conservatives for obstruction, rather than acknowledging that they are the ones in charge and that they have utterly failed in their legislative management. If this is any indication of how the Liberals have managed government over the last six years, no wonder our country is facing some major challenges.

Bill C-30 is a large bill and it addresses many aspects of COVID response program changes to other aspects of the functioning of government. I am going to get into those specific things.

However, I want to touch on a couple of things that have not received a lot of air time, so to speak, one of which is the proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act. The part of the Elections Act that talks about misleading statements during an election was struck down by a court ruling. The government has inserted in the bill, somewhat innocuously, an amendment to the act that would include the words “knowingly mislead” during an election.

There should be a lot of discussion on the “knowingly mislead” part, especially when we see the failures of the current government to uphold elections commitments, its pivoting away from promises made and, certainly, the astounding level of mistrust that is faced across political discourse these days. I find it troubling that this has not been debated extensively. It calls into question some of the purposes associated with why that would be inserted into the back of a budget implementation bill.

The second thing, and this is typically Liberal, is that in the budget implementation bill, the government plans to rename the gas tax fund. This is the Liberal agenda at its best. It takes something, renames it, shines it up a bit, gives it a little spit and polish, and then suggests they have done Canadians a great service with this new program with its fancy new name. That appears to be what Liberals have done with the gas tax fund, which will be called the Canada community building fund going forward.

The new name certainly has a ring to it, and most Canadians might say that it is a great idea, with grant applications and funds going to municipalities. However, it is very important to highlight that it is simply a change in name of a program, which has some of the challenges associated with government accountability and the increased costs. Then I expect to hear a flurry of election spending announcements, promoted by the infrastructure of government, as we saw prior to the 2019 election. We are already seeing cabinet ministers jet-setting across the country, using the tools they have at their disposal to make a myriad of promises prior to the election.

We are going to see a whole bunch of promises related to this new fund, but the Liberals probably will not call it a new fund. However, under a new name, the Liberals will certainly claim credit for the work, even though it was not the Liberals who brought forward that fund, and how it has benefited many municipalities, including some in Battle River—Crowfoot.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that on the record so Canadians know that simply renaming something does not give the government of the day credit.

There are extensions to many aspects of COVID programming and there are some concerns related to not being able to address some of the folks who have fallen through the cracks. There are further changes to health transfers, some of which are very needed. I would suggest the dollars are a little too late when it comes to vaccinations, which speaks to the Liberal strategy. If we had been on time with vaccines, we would not have had a third wave. This was the Prime Minister's third wave, when it comes to the delays we face.

As I have come to the end of my speech, I will simply say this. Parliament is an institution that represents Canadians, and to hear that the government is trying to circumvent, at every cost, the need for this place to carefully and thoughtfully debate and discuss legislation, including something as significant as the bill before us, Bill C-30, is very troubling. It is very troubling to hear the Liberals try to circumvent and dismiss the need for what should be of absolute importance to every single one of us.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the length of debate on the bill, that is up to us.

With regard to all the measures, the Bloc Québécois said it would support Bill C‑30. Indeed, this bill does have measures that people need and that we need to implement.

However, I must remind the government that, whether it be the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy, EI, sickness benefits or measures for seniors, all these measures are temporary and will come to an end. The bill does not include any meaningful measures nor any vision.

We have been saying for a long time that, in order to find a way out of this crisis, we need a vision to help us look forward and propose real, concrete and meaningful measures that will be lasting, not just temporary.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to continue the speech I started on Friday.

Does Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1, provide adequate guarantees to protect workers, to protect the unemployed, to protect sick workers and to treat seniors and their care workers with dignity? As I was saying, the answer is maybe or no.

I would like to use the five minutes I have remaining to talk about sick workers, who were counting on the government to take action after 50 years to extend special EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks once and for all.

There is no reason for the government to pass up this opportunity, to ignore the testimony and to abandon 150,000 people who benefit every day from sickness benefits, which expire after 15 weeks.

The government decided to take a half step by increasing the benefits to 26 weeks starting in 2022. In the short term, sick workers will have no more than 15 weeks of benefits. We are making a heartfelt plea for the bill to be passed. We heard the evidence; the House of Commons adopted a motion; the bill sponsored by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît was adopted by a majority; the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am the deputy chair, did a clause-by-clause study of the bill on June 17. All that is needed is one last push. We must act, and the government can do so by seeking royal assent. It must do so now.

Unemployed workers had very high expectations. I remind members that, in 2015, the Liberal government promised to overhaul the EI system, which leaves behind 60% of workers. They cannot access it because it discriminates against women, part-time workers, and workers are are ineligible and abandoned by the system.

It took the pandemic to force the government to implement temporary measures. Once again, all the budget offers is a single, 420-hour eligibility requirement for a period of one year. This is urgent. Where is the government? This is not enough. Once again, the government has everything it needs.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a big study on modernizing employment insurance. The committee's report was tabled in the House last week. The government has everything it needs, it has the solutions and has access to all of the analyses on the flaws of the program. However, according to Bill C‑30, there will be another two years of consultations.

I read an article from Radio-Canada in which the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion was saying that the computer system was in need of updates, that modernization could not happen all at once and that we might actually have to wait another seven years. That is preposterous.

It is unbelievable that the government is going to negate all of the efforts that have been made for so long and invest in consultations. The time for consultation is over. We need to sit down at the drawing board and take action. All of the solutions are in place. We need to do this for women, youth and self-employed workers.

Some might think that the crisis is over because there is a glimmer of hope. However, some sectors of the industry are still heavily impacted and still do not have any answers for their workers. They cannot provide any answers in the short term unless the government changes course and takes immediate action to undertake a reform.

We cannot wait any longer. I think that the government has everything it needs. Although some aspects might technically be more difficult because it is a complex system, the government needs to make them more politically desirable and implement a real employment insurance system. Workers are calling for it, as are groups representing unemployed workers and women.

We cannot continue with a system that discriminates against so many workers. I am thinking in particular about the many regions of Quebec and Canada that rely on seasonal industries. These workers experience gaps and become impoverished between their two employment periods. If we want to revitalize our regional economies, then we need to recognize the unique situation of seasonal economies and adapt the EI system accordingly so that workers in these industries are not penalized by default.

I would like to quote a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and send a message to the government. The witness said, “Just do it.” It is time to act.

From what columnists are saying, we have probably reached the end of this Parliament. The government could very well trigger an unnecessary election campaign. It will no doubt brag about everything it has done for workers, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the government has not taken any structured, concrete action, even though it has had the means to do so for quite some time now. It has made only empty promises, without any commitments.

Nothing will change as of tomorrow morning for workers who are sick. They will still be entitled to only 15 weeks of benefits, or possibly 26 weeks in 2022. We in the Bloc Québécois are calling on the government to increase sickness benefits to 50 weeks right now, but the government is still asking the unemployed to wait.

The government's Bill C‑30 has many other shortcomings, including the fact that it discriminates against seniors. We asked that a study be done and evidence provided to justify discriminating against seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. Very little information was forthcoming. It is ridiculous—

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who I have great respect for, for his speech today. One of the things that has not come up with Bill C-30 is the fact that it is an omnibus bill and it makes consequential changes to other acts including the Judges Act, the Elections Act and many other changes as well. This is coming from a government that ran in 2015, on the premise and the promise to Canadians that the Liberals were not going to impose omnibus bills.

Could the member comment on that and the other pattern of deceit on the part of the government?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

It is now my turn to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021. This budget looks nothing like any other budget in Canadian history. Before I comment on Bill C‑30, I want to talk about an unacceptable situation in my riding that the government is responsible for.

For years, the federal and provincial governments benefited greatly from the asbestos mines in the Appalaches RCM. Then the Liberal government shut down mining operations in the area. We can live with that. It was bound to happen. We can live with the mine tailings left by more than 100 years of mining operations. We can live with that, because we have turned things around. We have diversified our economy. I am very proud of my constituents' entrepreneurial spirit. They have transformed our mining town into a burgeoning town filled with robust small businesses. We can live with the fact that asbestos is still all around us. Asbestos is a natural fibre found in the ground, and closing the mines did not change the local geology. The asbestos was there long before us, and it will be there long after we are gone.

What I refuse to accept is Environment Canada's latest fearmongering campaign. Environment Canada put an ad in our local paper that says, “If you are using mining residues containing asbestos in your landscaping you could be putting yourself, your family and your neighbours at risk.” The hook reads, “DID YOU KNOW THAT breathing in asbestos fibres can cause life-threatening diseases?”

The answer to that question is yes. Used improperly, as was the case for years, asbestos can cause life-threatening diseases. It is ridiculous to tell people to be careful, because the fact is, their environment is dangerous. The government cannot just tell our people that their lives are in danger and then proceed to do nothing.

In 2018, I asked the Prime Minister to help our people rehabilitate mine lands and fix 100 years' worth of mining mistakes. The only answer I got was that my request had been forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources. I have heard nothing more since, nothing at all. Then this inappropriate, inexcusable and unacceptable ad was printed in the local paper.

The people of our RCM are being asked to assume the full costs of the environmental clean-up needed after 100 years of asbestos mining, and to do so quickly. They are being told that if this is not done, their lives will be at risk.

What is in the budget to help the people in my region? What is in the budget to help maintain economic diversification in my region? What is in the budget to protect people in regions that produce asbestos? There is nothing, other than an advertising budget, which Environment Canada is using to scare people without providing any real solutions.

It may not look all that exciting, but this is a small town in Quebec that is doing its best to emerge from the asbestos producing era and has diversified its economy. Its people are proud to live there.

The government is not offering any solutions. Time is running out. I wrote to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Environment and to several offices last week. I did not even receive an acknowledgement of receipt.

Governments are responsible for those 100 years of asbestos mining in my region. I expect the Liberal government to take responsibility and provide the means to ensure the safety and prosperity of our people.

Thetford Mines is like a town in a mine, it is like an oasis in the desert. The government cannot turn a blind eye to this reality and it must immediately end the fear campaign initiated by Environment Canada. It must grant my request to create a rehabilitation fund, and it must assume and accept its responsibilities for the 100 years of asbestos mining in Thetford Mines, in Asbestos and in every mining town in the country where there was asbestos.

Unfortunately for us, it seems that the government is completely disconnected from reality, the reality of regions like mine and the reality of the majority of Canadians.

This budget is historic, but for all the wrong reasons.

This week, we saw one of the negative effects of the Liberals' budget. The inflation rate hit 3.6%, the highest level in a decade.

Statistics Canada reported that costs are rising in all areas: housing, vehicles, food, energy, consumer goods and others. Housing costs increased by 4.2% by May, the fastest increase since 2008. The cost of gas increased 43%, the cost of vehicles rose by 5%. Prices rose by 3.2% in just a few months. Everything is going up, including furniture and accommodation costs. However, Canadians do not have more money.

The leader of the official opposition, the member for Durham, summed up the situation quite well in a speech earlier this week, and I quote:

Today's inflation numbers show the damage [the Prime Minister's] risky deficits and trillion-dollar debt are causing Canadians.

...

From housing to post-secondary education, transportation, and groceries, [the Prime Minister] has made life more expensive for average Canadians who are exhausted and want life to return to normal.

It is clear that this government's spending habits will only make life more difficult and more expensive for Canadians.

What does that debt look like? All told, the Liberals increased Canada's spending from $363 billion before the pandemic to about $500 billion for this year alone, and the deficit from $155 billion to a staggering $354 billion. After all of this government's spending promises, our national debt is going to hit the $1.5-trillion mark, a number that we are going to be hearing more and more in the House, a number that we never used before but that will now become a regular part of our vocabulary.

Canadians, my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be paying off this debt for generations. The risk of a rise in inflation is currently weighing heavily on people's shoulders because interest rates are going to go up. That means that this budget will be a real problem for all generations of Canadians.

Before I wrap things up, I want to stress that there are two absolutely unacceptable things in this budget.

The first is the government's decision to divide seniors into two categories: younger seniors aged 65 to 74 and older seniors 75 and up. There is absolutely nothing in this budget for younger seniors. In contrast, older seniors, those who will be 75 before July of next year, will be getting a $500 cheque a few weeks before a possible election call this fall.

The government has a lot of nerve if it thinks it is okay to give money to one group of seniors and completely ignore other seniors who, because of inflation, will have to pay higher prices for gas, food and all the other things I mentioned before. The government projects this image of being such a hero for seniors, yet it thinks this is okay. What a crock.

The second item I wanted to highlight is increasing EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. The House wanted these payments to go up to at least 50 weeks. For its part, our party is asking for 52 weeks. However, the government is not listening and will only increase the payment period to 26 weeks, and only as of next year.

What will happen to all the cancer cases diagnosed between now and then? What will happen to all the people who become sick before the date the change comes into effect and who will not be able to receive benefits because the government decided that the change should only come into effect next year?

It makes no sense. The government is completely out of touch. I am asking that it put both feet back on the ground. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I should vote against such a budget, which divides and which will put generations upon generations of Canadians into debt, while doing absolutely nothing to protect our future or create jobs.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with joy that I enter the debate here on a Friday afternoon to talk about Bill C-30.

There is a lot in this more than 700-page budget that we could go over. One of the things we noticed in this 700-page budget document is that it does not include the words “balanced budget” once. Out of 700 pages, there is no plan to return to balance. There is no plan to actually stop stockpiling debt onto future generations of Canadians. That is where I want to start my presentation today, talking about the next generations of Canadians, what this budget would actually do and how it would set up their life.

There was a column, written by Franco Terrazzano, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Kris Rondolo, who is the executive director of Generation Screwed. That is how the next generation is starting to feel right now. In this column, they wrote, “Canadian babies born on federal budget day 2021 had more than $28,000 of debt the moment they opened their eyes.”

I saw today that my friend and colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot had his seven-day-old son, Winston, on the screen today. I am sorry to tell Winston that he already owes the government $28,000 as of today. What will that look like in a couple of years? By the time these little ones are blowing out the candles on their fifth birthday, Ottawa projects their share of the federal debt will be $35,000. That will be for every baby who was born on budget day this year.

That is something we really need to start considering when we talk about budgets and bills like Bill C-30, and what we are doing to the next generation of Canadians.

It is important to know why the debt is soaring. The pandemic caused government revenues to drop by 11% in 2020, but there is a bigger story. Ottawa's spending, and let us remember that revenue dropped by 11%, has increased 75%. Let us take that 75% increase in Ottawa's spending into consideration.

Even worse, the Prime Minister and finance minister are using the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to increase government spending for the years to come. By 2026, the federal government is planning to permanently hike government spending by $100 billion more than pre-pandemic.

Where would we get the revenue from? I have often said to the people in Regina—Lewvan that the government does not make money, government only has the ability to take money, through taxes, from businesses and Canadians who have made it. That means that in 2026, the Government of Canada will be spending over $100 billion more than pre-pandemic levels. That money has to come from somewhere, and we all know where the government is looking to get some of that money.

It would be out Canadians' pockets, whether it be through a $170 carbon tax, income tax or a tax on permanent residents. We know the CMHC has been looking at that. We talked about in the 2019 campaign. Everyone said that is was ridiculous and that it would never happen. However, the Liberal government has spent a lot of money to look at how it could take money from Canadians.

Let us look at a few more numbers. On a year-to-year basis, the federal government spends $20 billion on debt interest charges each year. The provinces spend nearly $30 billion. By 2026, annual interest charges on the federal debt will nearly double to $39 billion. To put that in perspective, the finance minister's big announcement on a national child care program was that it was planning to spend $30 billion on day care over the next five years.

It would be $30 billion for a national child care program. How much would the federal government spend on debt payment in the next five years? It would be $153 billion in debt interest. The government is going to spend $30 billion on child care, and that was a big, trumpeted, top platform policy, something it was finally going to get done, yet over five years, it would be spending $30 billion on day care and $153 billion on the debt.

There is a lot of spending in this budget. It is 700 pages and there are programs that are going to have to be rolled out. We do not question the Liberal government's ability to spend money. I am sure the Prime Minister and the finance minister are very good at spending money. What we question is where their priorities lie for spending this money.

As my colleague before me asked, where is the job creation in this? When are people going back to work? Where is the plan for people to start earning paycheques instead of receiving government cheques? That is what we on this side are asking. Despite the size of this budget and the long wait, because we waited two years for it, there is still no plan for Canadians to return to normal life. That is what I have been hearing. I had time to do a lot of Zoom calls in my riding and I spoke with Tracy Fahlman of the Regina Hotel Association. She said that her stakeholder groups and the members of the association know they need help to get by, but they want to know when they will be able to welcome clients back through their doors and start making money again. They do not want to be on government programs for years to come; they want to start living their lives, earn their money, have their employees come back to work and get their businesses up and running again. That is what Canadians are looking for in this budget, but what is sorely missing is the lack of a plan to create jobs for Canadians.

Another thing we talked about in this budget is the ability to secure the future for the next generation. We are really looking forward to having this conversation, because I believe the government is really fired up to get ready for a campaign this fall, so we are looking forward to contrasting its lack of a vision with our five-point plan to secure the future for Canadians and recover those million jobs that were lost. The member for Carleton brings that up often in question period. By the end of this month, in the government's detailed department plan, it is supposed to recover all jobs lost due to the pandemic. However, the members on that side do not want to answer if they will fulfill that promise they made to recover the million jobs lost due to COVID‑19. That is the question that Canadians want answered. It is in the detailed department plan of the Minister of Finance, so why can the Liberals not tell us if they are going to reach that goal? It is a simple question that requires a simple answer: yes or no. However, again today no one on that side wanted to answer that question in question period.

I have often stood in this House and talked about the independent travel agents who have really been forgotten by the government. I tabled a petition on behalf of travel agents across Regina—Lewvan who are asking why, if the government has enough money for big bailouts for Air Canada, which can give $10 million to its executives, there is no money being paid to the independent travel agents who have been without income and unable to collect revenues for almost a year. The government is failing average, everyday Canadians. They been left behind by the government's plan and budget.

Another thing we looked for in the budget was support for pipelines. I do not think they are mentioned in this budget at all, not with respect to the oil and gas sector, so I brought that up several times. They really need some support. We need to fight to make sure that Line 5 does not get shut down. The government gave up on Keystone XL, because we know the members on that side of the House do not like the energy sector. The Prime Minister himself said he wants to phase out the oil sector across western Canada. Ironically, that might be the only promise he ends up keeping for western Canadians, to continue to phase out the oil sector where the hard-working men and women in my riding and across western Canada go to work every day.

I am happy to put on the record that the people of Regina—Lewvan did not vote for a Liberal government and that is why I will not be supporting this budget.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

The Liberals, after failing to deliver a budget for two years, finally got around to delivering one a few months ago. I have to say that the budget delivers. The only problem is that it delivers in all the wrong ways. The Liberals have delivered a historic deficit of $354 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history, and the Liberals have delivered a mountain of debt, with the national debt projected to reach $1.4 trillion by the end of this year.

To put that staggering figure in some context, the Liberals have managed to nearly double the national debt in the span of less than two years. This Liberal budget delivers yet another near historic deficit for this year of $154.7 billion, with deficit after deficit projected year after year, and no plan whatsoever to see a return to a balanced budget.

The members of the government say, as one of the excuses that they peddle for the massive deficits and massive debt, that it is all about COVID, and that COVID has necessitated all of the spending, except that simply is not true. Indeed, when one looks at program spending for 2021-22 of $475.6 billion, only a little more than 10% of that is attributable to COVID. Speaking of $475.6 billion in program spending, that represents a 40.5% increase in spending from 2019-20 levels. That is right. It is a 40.5% increase in spending in two years under these Liberals.

In the face of this massive, reckless spending, to paraphrase the great late former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, one could accuse the government of spending like drunken sailors. However, as President Reagan would say that at least the drunken sailors were spending their own money. The same cannot be said for the government. Whose money are the Liberals spending? It turns out that a lot of what they are doing is printing money.

In an unprecedented manner, the Bank of Canada is buying the government's debt. There was a $354-billion deficit last year. Of that, the Bank of Canada bought over $300 billion, or over 80%. We have seen, in terms of the supply of money, an increase of some 20% over this past year alone. That represents an increase in the supply of money that we have not seen in this country since 1974, nearly 50 years ago.

There is a price to be paid for all of this borrowing and all of the spending, and we hear the excuses from the government. The Liberals' justification is to say that now is a better time than ever to borrow and spend because interest rates are low.

Interest rates will not always be low, and it must be said that the government does not entirely have control of interest rates. Market forces also help determine what interest rates will be. Putting that aside, there is a cost being borne by everyday, middle-class Canadians in inflation.

Indeed, the consumer price index for April saw an increase of 3.4%. That was its highest recording since September 2011. It was a 10-year record in the consumer price index, and it was broken one month later when it rose by 3.6%. That has hit Canadians hard in the wallet.

We have seen the costs of just about everything go up. Homeowners' replacement costs increased 11.3% from last year, representing the largest annual increase since 1987. Housing prices have skyrocketed 42% in the span of one year. We have seen gasoline prices increase by about 50% from last year.

Regarding essentials such as groceries, the Canada Food Price Report projects that the average family of four will pay $695 more in groceries this year compared with last year. That represents the largest projected increase in the cost of groceries since the report was first published, more than 10 years ago.

I know that for our silver-spoon Prime Minister and other Liberal elites, $695 is chump change. It means nothing to them. For everyday Canadians, at a time when 53% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency, $695 can make the difference between putting food on the table and being able to stay in their homes.

For this budget, we have heard the finance minister talk so much about stimulus. By the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was totally miscalibrated. For all the talk about recovery, I say where are the jobs? There were 200,000 jobs lost in April and 68,000 jobs lost in May. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, and the sixth-highest unemployment rate out of 37 countries in the OECD.

For a government that has spent so much, it has failed to deliver as Canadians fall farther and farther behind. This is a failed budget from a failed Liberal government.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑30, but that does not mean much to the average person. This is a budget implementation bill.

It is interesting that we are talking about the budget and the budget implementation bill. It is 2021, and the government was elected in 2019, which means that the government took two years and a bit to finally present a budget. That is a problem. The COVID‑19 crisis started at the beginning of 2020, and it is still not over. It seems like the government took advantage of the crisis to avoid tabling a budget. This is a minority government, and it would normally have been held to account. Normally, the government would have had to try to work with the other parties, especially since it got even fewer votes than another opposition party.

A result like that on the heels of an election should be a wake-up call. The government should have understood that it might be a good idea to face the facts and that it would have to think carefully about its next moves and reach out to others. Unfortunately, it seems that [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Madam Speaker, I just realized that I had some technical issues.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that Bill C-30 does not address, and it is a wide chasm, is the issue of those who fell through the cracks under previous iterations of some of the benefits.

I am speaking specifically about travel advisers and businesses that were started in 2020 that did not have access to many of the benefits that other businesses or other Canadians had. The fact is that the implementation bill neglects to address those issues and causes severe problems for those Canadians who otherwise did not qualify for these types of benefits.

Could the member comment on that?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks on Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, with a solemn reflection of my time in the House.

When I first began, I had the opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. At that point in time, we were all hopeful that in a minority government, we could work through in a way that would be of the greatest benefit to Canadians. Then, with the next Speech from the Throne after prorogation, I rose in this very spot and talked about the regret I felt, that we could have done better by Canadians in this time of crisis.

I want to take this moment of solemn reflection and centre the conversation back to the 25,000 people who have died from COVID in our country. We heard the remarks from the previous speaker about our agricultural sector. I want to note the recent passing of a migrant farm worker, someone who was left without the basic protections that most Canadians seem to take for granted. I want to think about the key question of what a budget implementation act is meant to do in a time of crisis, in this time of COVID. We have heard the term “unprecedented” time and again.

The last time I rose in the House, I talked about the opportunity we had before us and how, as New Democrats, we could fight for what could be in Canada and not what was. I wish I could suggest today that we have somehow found that dream, but I continue to point to the promises made, but not kept, by the Liberal government to the working-class people of the country. We know this crisis was not experienced equally.

During the pandemic, inequalities have increased. There was not an all-hands-on-deck approach. This has not been a team Canada approach. While everybody else was $200 away from insolvency, while 25,000 people perished, many of them living in deplorable conditions in long-term care facilities that had been privatized and carved out of our so-called universal health care, the ultra wealthy among us acquired close to $80 billion in wealth.

We have learned a lot about the Liberal government over the last few years. It talks a really good game and chases those headlines, but has no intention of delivering. Even elements of its own budget announcement have been left out of this budget implementation act. There is no wealth tax. There is no excess profits tax. The government talks about consultations, so it can report back to the House at a future date, and all the while the ultra-wealthy in the country continue to profit from the misery.

There is a choice to be made each and every time a budget is presented. It is ultimately a choice of which side one is on, that of the ultra-wealthy 1% or the rest of us. Since the beginning, people in my community of Hamilton Centre, noting the chuckles in the House from the Liberal side, are worried about whether they will be able to keep their job or pay rent. Let us forget about them ever being first-time homeowners. That dream is long gone for the people in my city, because the working-class wages have been suppressed. while the ultra-wealthy gained incredibly obscene amounts of money.

This crisis has revealed the fragility of the social safety nets we tout and for which we have so much pride, those measures that supposedly distinguish us from the rest of the world. The whole system has been set up on the backs of working-class people. We only have to look at the way the EI program, which had been raided by previous Liberal governments to balance the budget, completely fell apart and left out part-time workers and people who were self-employed. During this crisis, it was the workers who experienced the direct consequences of years of austerity and underfunding from successive Conservative and Liberal governments.

In this moment of historic crisis, when we stood here fighting for greater benefits for workers and pushing to ensure people had some kind of security, we heard people in the House bemoan the fact the average everyday Canadian may have received a meagre $2,000 a month. All the programs and social spending combined, at about $100 billion, pales in comparison to the $750 billion that was transferred to Bay Street and the big banks.

When were talking about a guaranteed livable income and about increasing CERB supports for people, I remember the hon. member for Winnipeg North asking “What are we going to do, click our heels to support Canadians?” The Liberals certainly did that for Bay Street. This represents the largest transfer of wealth from the general public, the working-class people, to the ultra-wealthy in the country. Main street was absolutely mugged by Bay Street.

We were fighting for workers and tried to find that balance. One of the mistakes made over the course of COVID was the fact that rather than ensure the direct supports for wage subsidies went directly for workers, we allowed it to go to businesses. The Liberals did it in such a way they knew had significant holes and gaps, loopholes almost as big as their tax haven scams. What did that result in?

There were $18 billion that went into oil and gas in 2020. Imperial Oil took $120 million in the Canada emergency wage subsidy, while paying out $324 million to its shareholders. Chartwell received $3 million and paid out 11 times that amount, $33 million, to its shareholders.

Yesterday, in debate, I recall one of the hon. members from the Liberal side tried to challenge the hon. member for Burnaby, suggesting somehow he was not doing enough as an individual to contribute to his community.

I put a question to the House, to all the members who are watching in the Canadian public. When I talk about the theft of corporate Canada from taxpayers in the country, the question is cui bono, who profited from that crime? Who in the House holds stocks and shares that may have been paid off the dividends and off the back of our Canada emergency wage subsidy?

Air Canada was given $6 billion, yet Greyhound leaves and the government does not see fit to support northern and rural communities by expanding government as a service, a national passenger bus transit strategy that would have ensured people had the ability to move around the country. We can look at the close to one billion dollars given to pharmaceutical companies. We have no preferable procurement. We are giving money away to the private sector and getting nothing in return.

Why do we not have in this moment, in this budget implementation act, the ability for us as a nation to procure our own life-saving vaccines? Because the government would rather kowtow to pharmaceutical companies, to allow them to set the agenda, the prices and the market, the global market.

Nobody is safe in the country until the entire world is safe. The government continues to tout how many vaccines it has taken in, while simultaneously taking from the COVAX facility. At the very same time, with absolutely zero moral authority, it blocked the patent waivers for which the international world is calling.

My city was just named a Delta variant hot spot this week. This budget does not deliver on the ability for us to adequately respond to how this could potentially have mutations and could potentially make all our vaccination efforts useless.

I want the Liberals to reflect on the things they have said over the last two years versus what they have actually delivered. At the end of the day, I want them to be accountable for all the people they have left out in this implementation act.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Canadians have been hit very hard over the past year and a half because of the global pandemic, and many have lost jobs or had hours reduced. Some have had time off work to care for loved ones. Sectors, such as tourism and retail, have been hit especially hard.

After going years since the last budget, Canadians were hoping to see some leadership from the Liberal government, and perhaps a clear direction and a path forward as we move closer to putting the pandemic behind us. Instead, Canadians were presented with a budget that was big on promises and very low on substance. Instead of a concrete plan of investment, increased economic activity and a pathway toward economic recovery and reopening, Canadians were presented with a collection of the greatest hits of past Liberal promises, which have never been delivered on to this day. The government has been high on rhetoric and low on results. Canada has a great story to tell, and we should have a government that is willing to do the work to put Canada in a position to prosper as we transition out of the pandemic.

In the early weeks of the pandemic when Canadians were facing tremendous uncertainty, I took a drive through the beautiful riding of Tobique—Mactaquac in western New Brunswick. During the drive, I remember reflecting on what a difficult time Canadians were facing, some even more than others, and how many sectors were affected by the devastating effects of the pandemic. Some were fully shut down. Others were facing tremendous uncertainty. The headwinds of this unprecedented circumstance were truly overwhelming for many parts of the world, and Canada was no exception.

As I was driving through my riding that day in the spring of last year, something caught my eye, and it left a deep impression on me. I still reflect upon it to this day on occasion. I come from a large rural riding, a farming and agricultural riding, that plays a tremendous role in our local economy. Particularly, I come from potato-growing country. In fact, part of my riding is known as the french fry capital of the world, and I must confess that my physique sometimes portrays that. It is a bit of a weakness. We do have great potatoes, meat and beef in my riding.

This, in turn, drives many other sectors in our region, such as trucking and manufacturing, and our processing facilities. While much of our lives were shut down and despite the great uncertainty, fear and anxiety, some sectors kept going. even in the face of great uncertainty. They kept doing what they needed to do in the face of unprecedented obstacles.

What I observed that day last year left an imprint on me: I saw farmers once again, in the spring, going out into their fields to plant seed in the ground. They did not know what the market would be like and they were not sure about the demand, but they got up and went to sow seed into the soil. They kept doing what they knew they could do, and entrusted things they were not sure about to what would come and who could be trusted to take care of them.

Through faith, through hard work and through pure tenacity, many farmers in my region faced the headwinds of uncertainty head-on, and I drew inspiration from that. I thought that if the farmers can keep doing what they know is right to do in the face of uncertainty, all of us as Canadians can draw inspiration from that and keep doing the things we know are right to do, even though we are not sure what the ultimate outcome may be.

I am glad to report that in my region several sectors kept going. Truckers kept moving their goods, farmers kept planting their seeds and the processors kept processing. The demand for food has remained.

I think this has taught us all a significant lesson that we need to reflect upon: Now is the time for Canada to be positioned to take advantage of a post-COVID world. Now is the time for Canada to make the decisions that state clearly that we believe in ourselves and we believe in our potential as a country to move past COVID-19. This is a time when we can show the strength and fortitude that I saw in the producers, truckers and first responders of my region and that we have seen throughout this entire country. Now is the time to build with the future in mind. Rather than continually speaking to the perils and the overwhelming challenges that we face, let us as parliamentarians and as a collective body in the House speak to our potential as a country.

The world wants to do business with Canada. The world likes Canada and the world sees our potential, and I think often more than what we may see in ourselves. We need the leadership here at home to say that Canada can become even more than what it has ever been. Canada can be positioned to thrive and prosper for generations to come if we make decisions to prioritize Canadian industry, Canadian entrepreneurship, Canadian technology, Canadian resources and Canadian know-how. Our greatest asset is our people, and the more we can empower our people and allow them to do what they do best, the more Canada will be positioned to thrive, grow and prosper on the other side of the pandemic.

I speak with faith and optimism because of what I have witnessed at home and what I have heard from across the country: Canadians rose to the occasion in the face of great uncertainty. What we need now is a government that will respond in kind and say that it trusts Canadians to do what only Canadians can do and in a way that only Canadians can do it, that is, rise to face the challenges of this moment.

Today I stand before the House with a great deal of gratitude in my heart for what I have witnessed in people and what I see in Canadians. I also stand before the House with a challenge for each of us. We should draw inspiration from those we work with, those we have witnessed on the front lines and those who have kept doing tremendous things when they were facing overwhelming odds and obstacles. I feel we can even draw inspiration from our very own coat of arms, which says, “They desire a better country.” That is in our coat of arms.

In this post-COVID time when we move beyond the pandemic and get to the other side of it, why not desire an even better country to hand to future generations? Let us make decisions to invest in our people and entrust our people, and make the decisions we need in order to secure our future in a way that will make Canada sustainable for generations to come.

How do we do that? We do it by maximizing the areas that we do and know so well, whether it is in agriculture, where we grow some of the best and finest foods in the world; in energy, where we have the most environmentally regulated and sustainable energy resources in the world and where we treat ethically the people who produce and work in its sectors; or in our technological fields, which are advanced. We have amazing potential, and I am speaking to it today.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, shame on the member for the interruption.

I have debated this issue. I have supported this issue's advancement, and I suspect that it will get through second reading at some point, as other private members' bills will. If there is keen interest such as I have heard today on the floor of the House from all members, I would suggest that they raise the issue with their respective House leadership teams. Maybe there is a way in which it can be accommodated.

Is this select group now going to prioritize all the other areas and bills that are before us and say these ones too should be rushed through the House of Commons without debate, let alone some debate? I could list Bill C-6 on conversion therapy. I could talk about Bill C-30, which is going to help millions of Canadians, many of whom are in desperate situations. Then there is Bill C-12, on net zero and the environment, and Bill C-10. That does not even go into the many private members' bills from many of our colleagues who are very interested in advancing their ideas, resolutions and bills.

That does not take away from the importance of the debate on this bill. I suspect that when it comes to a vote, every member will likely vote for it as they did previously. The ones who are trying to score political cheap shots today are the opposition parties. In the days going into summer, this is brought to the table. If the people who are pushing for this legislation really wanted to do a service for the audience, there is a better way of doing it. I suspect some of them know that, but they have chosen to do this in their partisanship, while saying the Liberal government is preventing it.

Out of respect for some of the individuals I have referenced, I will work within my caucus, as I know my colleague from Toronto who spoke prior to me will. We understand what the bill and the legislation will do, but we also understand that after today there are three days left of this session before we break for the summer. There are still opportunities to try to shame one political entity into unanimous consent for personal or political views, or to try to make others look bad. I believe that the manner in which this issue is being dealt with today is just wrong.

I have been on House leadership teams for 30 years. It would be nice to see this bill passed at all stages. If that is possible, then I would really recommend that members watching or participating use that same passion in talking to their House leaderships. There might even be some other members who have other ideas for legislation that may be important to them and to Canadians, and that could allow us to set a good example around the world.

Canada taking action can have a positive outcome for other nations. I recognize that, but I also recognize that at the end of the day, in order for us to succeed we have to have a process. If we are respectful of the process and work in collaboration as parties, we could probably achieve a lot more, as we did for the private member's bill the first and second go-round.

I would invite members who are following the debate to participate in a discussion afterwards with regard to how I feel, using my expertise, about what could be done with regard to this legislation.

I suggest this as an open gesture of goodwill, because I, like the former Liberal speaker, support the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to what has been said. In good part I agree when members talk about the partisanship we are seeing on the floor, but I take it from a different perspective, where, over the last while, there has been a great deal of partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons.

I know that a good number of people are watching and are very much interested in this piece of legislation ultimately passing and receiving royal assent. There was a great sense of disappointment when it passed the House of Commons but the Senate was not able to get its royal assent. There is no doubt that a vast majority of Canadians recognized that it should be a crime to travel abroad without the donor's consent in order to get an organ transplant.

They try to give a false impression. I referred to it yesterday, and more and more we are seeing this unholy alliance of opposition parties coming together to try, in every way possible and in as partisan a way as possible, to make the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus look bad. Seriously, I am not aware of any Liberal member of Parliament who would want to prevent this from becoming law. There are procedures that need to take place. Each political entity has a House leadership team with whom the issue could be addressed.

I say, to individuals like Irwin Cotler, David Matis, Maria and so many others who have been strong advocates on this issue, that what they are witnessing today is a partisanship that is not coming from the government. The government is doing what it can to ensure that there is a series of pieces of legislation. I could cite specific examples that have been provided to me. We know that we could pass this with unanimous consent, as we could do for a number of pieces of legislation.

Where was this empathy for the people the legislation would benefit, for example, when we dealt with Bill C-3? Bill C-3 was about the judicial appointments and training. Members will recall that it, too, passed the House of Commons in the last Parliament and the government reintroduced it as Bill C-3. How many hours of debate took place on that bill, even though it went through the full process the previous time? It was hours and days, but the Conservatives did not want it passed, and for what reasons? I will let people follow the debate.

Members will say that the issue has been debated already. I remember opposition members, when the shoe was on the other foot, would say that it was the previous Parliament and there are new members of Parliament who were just elected back in 2019 and ask if they should not be afforded the opportunity, if they want to be able to contribute to the debate. I understand the rules, the process and how things operate regarding legislation. We now have an offer saying that if we pass this bill unanimously right now, we will be allowed to debate Bill C-30. Members can imagine the hypocrisy. That is the reason I raised the matter of privilege I raised earlier today.

Last Friday and this Friday the NDP and the Conservatives were working together through privileges to prevent the government from being able to deal with legislation. Is this legislation not also important? What about other private—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debates all week and many of my colleagues have used their time in their interventions to acknowledge the wonderful work that various people have done.

I very much support Bill S-204.

As members know, we had a late night last night. We were voting on the main estimates to approve the necessary programs that were going to make a difference in all Canadians' lives, programs that would help get people back on their feet after surviving this global pandemic. It has not been easy, but we have been there for Canadians.

It is my hope that in the coming days, when we deal with bills like Bill S-204, we will see the swift passage of bills like Bill C-30 and other important pieces of legislation, which still need to be addressed, so we can ensure that the supports needed to help Canadians through the final stages of this pandemic are in place. That is why we are all here in this place. We do not need to be told by other colleagues that if we want to get Bill C-30 passed, we have to turn around and get some other bill passed. That is not the way democracy works.

We are to represent our constituents and make a positive difference, and I believe Bill S-204 would make a big difference in the lives of many people.

Bill S-204, formally known as Bill S-240, passed both in the House and in the other place in 2019. I was very proud to be one of the persons, along with my colleagues, who passed this important bill. I appreciate the fact that my colleague has raised this issue, brought it back and continues to move it forward, because it is a very important bill.

Unfortunately, Bill S-240 never became law due to the dissolution of the House before the federal election. That happened to many good pieces of legislation. It is long overdue that this Parliament pass legislation like Bill S-204, dealing with a practice that we all are appalled to know continues in spite of many of us calling for the abolition of it. We know it continues on many days and in many countries.

Similar bills have been sitting in Parliament for over 12 years, during which time many innocent lives have perished due to the organ transplant trade, something we all find completely appalling. Two previous private members' bills were tabled by my former colleague, the former member for Etobicoke Centre, and my life-long friend, someone we all love and respect, the Hon. Irwin Cotler.

I am the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong and I am all too familiar with the issue of organ harvesting and how this bill could help put an end to this horrific practice. I have seen many pictures and talked to people who have had their family go through this terrible process.

Bill S-204 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. The bill also would amend the Criminal Code to enable Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute, and that is very important. There is no sense having legislation if we do not put teeth in it. We need that ability to prosecute, in Canada, Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit any of the proposed offences abroad.

I was recently told about number of Canadians who were going abroad, specifically to China, and getting kidney transplants and different things done. I would like to ask Canadians, before they do that, to think about where those organs come from. This would make it an offence for any Canadian to go abroad to take advantage of that.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that permanent residents or foreign nationals would be inadmissible to Canada if the responsible person were of the opinion that they have engaged in any of these activities relating to trafficking in human organs. Imagine that for $5,000, someone can get a transplant, never asking where that organ came from.

Our government is committed to ensuring our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest of terms, and that was shown in the previous vote on Bill S-240, and will be on this one as well. We continue to have very strong feelings on things like this, as I believe all Canadians do.

Organ trafficking, the practice of extracting organs through coercive means to sell them for profit, is absolutely reprehensible and it is a global challenge, not just the challenge we are talking about today, which frequently involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is a complex issue that requires both legislative and policy responses. Our government is proud to support this important bill, with targeted amendments that would make it better to achieve its objectives.

I very much look forward to seeing its passage by Parliament contrary to what my colleagues seemed to indicate earlier. This a bill that we all want to pass and then have very strong enforcement to end human trafficking in organ transplants.

If I do not get another opportunity to do so, I wish everyone a blessed summer and I will see everyone in September.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is related to the request he has asked of the House. Would he agree that what he was attempting to do is best done through House leadership teams, where they can try to see if it is possible to do what he has requested?

For example, would the member support the quick passage of Bill C-30, which is the budget bill, given the implications for the pandemic and supports for Canadians? Would he support such a measure for Bill C-30, Bill C-6, Bill C-10 and Bill C-12?

Government Programs

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, the CRB is part of a comprehensive suite of emergency and recovery measures to support Canadian workers and businesses. Through the CRB, if opposition parties support Bill C-30, Canadians can have access to up to 50 weeks of benefits. They could also have access to more flexible EI benefits, businesses could continue to have access to the wage subsidy, and we could help Canadians reenter the labour market by creating 500,000 new training and work opportunities and launching the Canada recovery hiring program.

We will continue to do whatever it takes, but we implore opposition parties to help us put Bill C-30 through.

Seniors

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, “junior seniors” and “senior seniors” sounds absurd because it is absurd. That is what we will have in Canada if the Liberal government does not fix its budget, Bill C-30: a two-tier seniors system.

Many Canadians are outraged that seniors aged 65 to 74 have been left out of the plan for a long-overdue increase to old age security payments. Our government is hiding from them, saying it is living up to a campaign promise. Keeping a promise on bad policy does not make it good.

The minister says older seniors are “at greater risk of running out of their savings”. Also, government documentation refers to our large proportion of seniors aged 65 to 74 who still work. There it is: the government policies on the backs of seniors who feel they need to either work or use up their savings. By its design, it is a two-tier and unfair system.

The Liberals still have the power to fix this before we rise for the summer. I call on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Seniors to do what is right.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to Bill C-30, there are a lot of measures in it for Canadians that have to be passed in order to get us through the rest of this pandemic. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can give his feedback on how important he thinks it is, now more than ever, to make sure this bill passes as quickly as possible.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to members from Scarborough—Rouge Park, the traditional lands of many indigenous nations, most recently of the Mississaugas of the Credit. I will be speaking in support of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021.

Before I go deeper into the budget, I want to reflect on the past few weeks. It has been a difficult few weeks for many in our country, and I think it is safe to say that our hearts ache on a number of different fronts.

First and foremost, learning of the graves of 215 children in Kamloops has really opened existing wounds and has shaken us up in a way things have rarely shaken us. This is a moment in time when all of us need to come together and ensure that there is justice, accountability and reflection. There is also a real commitment to ensure that all of the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report are implemented.

There are sadly going to be other findings along the way, and I think in order for us to have closure, in order for us to truly live up to the past and move forward, we need to support indigenous-led initiatives that will commemorate and remember, and that will ensure that the children are brought home. I send my heartfelt condolences to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc people and I want to assure them that I, along with my colleagues in the House, will continue to work to support them and others in these efforts.

Just last week, I sadly attended another memorial, in London, Ontario, to pay respects to the Afzaal family. I was joined by members from all parties and leaders from across different levels of government, but most importantly the members of the Muslim community in London.

The Afzaal family were walking, like most of us have relearned to do over the past 18 months or so. They were going on an evening walk and they were sadly mowed down by a terrorist, by someone who espoused so much hate. I do not even know if I could fathom the level of hate this individual had to do this to this family, but more broadly, to attack us as Canadians. When we see an attack on one individual community or family, it really is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on the values that we espouse.

Sadly, it did not stop there. We know that incidents of Islamophobia have been on the rise exponentially over the past several days. We have seen incidents in Edmonton, as my friend from Edmonton Riverbend just referenced. We have seen daily microaggressions toward many friends, colleagues and others we may have worked with. This is a real moment for us to reflect on the level of hate speech, the level of hate propaganda on social media. We know that incidents of anti-Semitism are on the rise.

This is a moment for us to reflect and make sure that we do better and we collectively work together, that we do not use race and these differences as wedge issues, but rather as issues that we can all come together to fight against as a common good. I sincerely hope that we have turned the page in our Parliament where we can do that. I hope to work across the aisle with my friends opposite to do that.

On a very personal note, I must thank all those colleagues who are not going to be running again in the next election. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge and thank my good friend from Mississauga—Malton, the former minister of innovation, for his extraordinary guidance for me personally and the doors that he opened for me to ensure my success. I want to pay particular respect and thank him and his extraordinary family, Bram, Kirpa, Nanki, Poppa Bains and Momma Bains, for all they have done.

In his speech, he reflected on the issue of identity, on the issue of being Sikh and being able to practise his faith and live day to day as a Sikh with enormous and extraordinary challenges, and yet he has overcome so many and has led us in ways that I do not have time to describe here.

I do want to get to the budget, and I want to talk about something that has been very important for the people of Scarborough. Scarborough region used to be its own municipality prior to amalgamation with the broader city of Toronto. We have a population of roughly 630,000 people. We are represented by six parliamentarians; we call them the Scarborough caucus. We have set out since 2015 to prioritize one singular ask, which is additional support for transit.

The Scarborough region has not had any higher levels of transit built in a generation. The last project, the rapid transit, the LRT, is coming to an end in 2023. It is broken down. It is far past its best-before date, and it is fair to say that it is not serving the people of Scarborough.

In 2015, Scarborough Agincourt was represented by Arnold Chan. We got together and said we absolutely needed to make sure that we built higher orders of transit. At that time, the singular project that was in the pipeline, with almost a 10-year debate behind it, was the Scarborough subway extension. It was initially a three-stop subway. It became a four-stop subway, then a two-stop subway, and finally here we are today and we were recently able to announce a federal investment of $2.25 billion into a three-stop line, which will start construction before the end of the year, and we are hopeful that it will be constructed by 2030. That is the timeline that has been provided.

This is a game-changer. This is very important, and this is an important investment in the people of Scarborough, all the hard-working people. Scarborough had one of the most affected populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have had so many issues of riders, essential workers, going downtown in crammed buses and being affected disproportionately to the population. I believe this is a very important investment.

As much as this is important, this is not the end for us. Scarborough as a region will require additional supports in terms of infrastructure, and that is why this budget is so important, as it outlines a mechanism through the permanent public transit funding that would enable places like Scarborough to build. I am looking forward to supporting the construction of the Eglinton East LRT as the next project.

I look forward to the questions and answers today.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the Liberals tying themselves in rhetorical knots about defending aspects of policies and trying to distance themselves from decisions that were made in the past. It certainly is a fascinating discussion in rhetoric.

My question for the member is quite simple. In Bill C-30, there are some changes to the Elections Act that are related to a court decision. Specifically, it would make it illegal to knowingly mislead constituents during an election. Now, there has not been a lot of focus on this in the debate on this bill because it is a bit like an omnibus bill, which the Liberals had promised not to do, but this has been inserted into the bill. I would like to hear the member's comments on that particular aspect of Bill C-30.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Bill C-30, the budget debate.

I first want to reflect on my constituency's strengths and its ability to adapt to these changing times. This is because Egmont is a place where people take care of one another. First, there is a great respect for family, and in a tight-knit community that means the residents are very conscious of both the successes and the challenges faced by their neighbours. Further to that, there is a collective understanding that every individual has a contribution to make. Within that fabric of individuals, families and communities there is a real strength. As a result, Egmont has fared relatively well during the pandemic because virtually every individual recognizes a real sense of duty to the whole.

People have worked hard to keep the community safe, and all the while we have been hard at work building one of the greenest ridings in the country with a thriving economy based on fishing, farming, high-level services and a very successful aerospace sector. Indeed, the City of Summerside has recently been recognized by a national magazine as one of the leaders in the field of green energy. It has spent a great deal of time focusing on wind energy, solar energy with a smart grid system, industrial-scale lithium batteries and the highest per capita concentration of electric car chargers in the country. Those are just a few of the green energy initiatives the city has moved on. I am pleased to be part of a government that has supported the city's initiatives in its innovative, leading-edge green energy solutions and innovations. We have continued to build on those infrastructure investments over the last number of years.

Summerside is just one example I use in identifying Egmont as a leader in the field of green energy across the riding. We were one of the first parts of the country to move toward wind energy and, indeed, the Wind Energy Institute of Canada is located in the riding of Egmont. This has allowed us to build a very successful and thriving green energy infrastructure here in my riding.

Summerside is one of a number of communities that makes up the riding of Egmont. In each of these I could look at the improvements that our government has supported, community by community, in a host of infrastructure initiatives that have built stronger communities right across the riding, including in the rural parts.

We have also maintained a trajectory of success at a difficult time because of hard work, diligence and a constant sense of optimism that these qualities can transcend any difficulty thrown at us. I am proud to be a member of a government that recognizes and celebrates meaningful support for individuals. I say that because I believe this government understands that support for the individual is the foundation of a strong community. From speaking to residents, I know that their confidence levels grew dramatically over the last year because they knew this fact: Our Liberal government has Egmont's back. Why am I so sure of that? Let us look at just a few priorities.

Programs for students are a priority. In 2021, our government has committed record financial contributions to the Canada summer jobs program, which students depend on for securing work over the summer months. We continue to waive student loan interest during the pandemic. We are enhancing repayment assistance on student loans and we are doubling the Canada student grants. These are just some of the initiatives that have been identified in this budget.

We have extended sick time for individuals. When this budget is passed, this will be a major initiative. An issue that we have heard a lot about over the last number of years, especially through the House of Commons HUMA committee, is that the existing sick time benefit is not adequate. I am pleased that our government has recognized that.

We also have an extensive array of business supports that were required to carry businesses through this unprecedented pandemic. We hear constantly in the House of Commons that this is an area where we have to continue to offer more support as we begin to emerge from the pandemic.

We have also supported enhanced educational opportunities for everyone.

For all these reasons and many more, I am proud to be part of a government that is active, that is smart, that protects Canadians and that understands the real challenges that have confronted each and every one of us. I compare that system of values to the one so fondly embraced by the Conservatives.

Too often, I have heard our colleagues in the opposition rail against support for individuals, saying that the so-called “free market” will be the salvation of our well-being. Such a direction would have led to catastrophic results in Egmont, and the deep and terrible worries unleashed by the pandemic would have been swollen with further concerns about bills, putting food on the table and shelter costs.

I believe in a government that will be there to support individuals during difficult times, because if that is not the government's role, then what is it? In a difficult time, we should not only be focused on bean counting and should not reject the legitimate needs of Canadians. Instead, we should be responding effectively, with reliability and in a way that builds public confidence that the government is there to prevent disaster and guide Canadians through a difficult time.

That said, I believe there is an area of public responsibility that requires greater attention. I have always been of the opinion that seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement require more assistance. These are the most financially vulnerable members of the seniors community, and after a lifetime I believe they have earned the right to have fewer worries and more comfort. Therefore, I firmly believe the GIS should be increased, and I will continue to raise this subject.

My firm hope is that, in the very near future, government will take the steps to adjust these supports in a way that reflects two items. First, I believe we have the capacity as a country to offer this additional assistance, and second, I think it is very important that we recognize the challenges associated with being a senior in a changing world. I will continue to raise this subject in the hope that the government will adjust its plan and decide on a different course that is more helpful to the larger community and that helps individuals in a much more focused way.

To conclude, I want to congratulate the government. In effect, I am grading this budget at well above 90%, which is a very good mark by any stretch of the imagination. I am proud of my constituency and its efforts to get through a difficult year, and with the ongoing and dedicated support of an active and reliable government, the constituency of Egmont will emerge stronger than ever before.

As I indicated throughout my comments, I am pleased to be part of a government that has the backs of Canadians, the backs of Islanders and the backs of the residents of my riding of Egmont. I have been most proud to be part of the decision-making process in supporting those programs that have been so beneficial to Canadians, to Canadian businesses, to non-profit organizations and to municipalities and infrastructures that needed so much assistance during this unprecedented change in the economy created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the facts show that Quebeckers cannot count on the federal government to take action against tax havens. There is nothing in budget 2021 to do away with them.

Unfortunately, there are provisions in Bill C‑30 that make it even easier to use tax havens. The federal government is therefore still complicit in tax avoidance schemes, which makes Canada part of the problem and not part of the solution in the fight against tax havens.

In budget 2021, which serves as a springboard for the post-COVID‑19 economic recovery, the federal government offers little or nothing to help small farms get better access to credit. This inability to access credit was one of the most serious problems that farmers encountered during the health crisis. That is unacceptable.

Agriculture is obviously not a priority for the Liberal government, but it is a priority for Quebec and an integral part of our culture. The Liberal government has never been interested in supporting a bill to better protect supply management, which is essential to the survival of the agricultural model. Protecting supply management has always enjoyed broad support within Quebec's agricultural sector, but it is also acknowledged by producers in the other provinces as well as in the United States, which says something.

Why did the Liberal government recently do everything it could to prevent Bill C‑216 being passed in committee? Well, it did pass, and we hope the accelerating pace of the coming days will bring this bill along for the ride. Quebec's agricultural sector is counting on us.

In the Bloc Québécois's view, parliamentary proceedings and debates too often take too long, things do not move fast enough, and people talk even though they have nothing to say. For years, and again this week, members have spoken at length in the House of Commons about various aspects of the housing problem.

Still, there remains a desperate need for housing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as well as in several other regions of Quebec, and that need is only being made more acute by the communities' sustained efforts to attract workers.

What of the federal government's solutions to this problem? There are none. The federal government has not proposed any. I would, however, like to highlight a local initiative undertaken by the Fondation Martin-Bradley. They organized a radiothon and raised $301,000 to, among other things, build housing for people who are struggling, especially people living with mental health problems.

The Fondation Martin-Bradley got things done. I am thinking especially of Ghislain Beaulieu, and of Jean-Yves Morneau and his son, Jean-François, who organized a fundraiser among the region's entrepreneurs and businesspeople. The amount raised, $301,000, is huge, and I want to salute them. Among other things, the funds will go to finance projects, like for farm outreach workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue's farming community, for whom psychological support is so essential. I have to say it again: All this stems from the fact that the federal budget does nothing to address the situation.

Legitimate transfer payments to Quebec to encourage housing initiatives are both slow to come and hugely insufficient. Not enough construction is happening, which is having a direct impact on the economic and social development of our regions and Quebec as a whole.

Out of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, more substantial amounts need to be transferred, especially considering the current context, which includes the significantly higher cost of materials and labour. At the same time, tax incentives for developers would be a way to support and stimulate infrastructure initiatives that offer exciting opportunities for the recovery by building on what has been achieved in our communities, not to mention community-based housing projects that would provide a sustainable solution to this problem.

Finally, why will Ottawa not allocate funding for the regions, with no strings attached, to be administered by Quebec and people on the ground? This would encourage development projects based on specific parameters and priorities linked to specific needs. More than ever, labour shortages are hindering the economic recovery of my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. More than ever, the federal government needs to come up with solutions, because we are feeling abandoned right now.

I believe that the particular status of a region like Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which borders Ontario, places it in a certain situation. People back home are moving to the riding of the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing because immigration cases are processed in 12 months in Ontario, whereas in my riding it takes up to 27 months, or even 30 months in certain cases. That is ridiculous.

As I was saying, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue there is a housing shortage coupled with a labour shortage, and therefore it is important to stimulate housing construction. How can we attract and keep skilled workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue when they are unable to find a home for their families? The federal government must act quickly.

Bill C‑30 also attacks Quebec once more and its securities regulator. That is unacceptable.

How can we ignore one of the federal government's most blatant centralizing moves in recent years, its attempt to bring the financial sector under federal control by making it responsible for insurance, securities, derivatives, deposit taking institutions except for banks and the distribution of financial products and services?

The objective of this Canada-wide securities regulator is another example of the centralization of financial markets by the federal government. It wants Toronto to become a single Canada-wide regulator, which would be contrary to the independent economic development of all the other provinces. This is not just a jurisdictional dispute or a squabble between the federal and provincial governments, it is a battle between Bay Street and Quebec.

I remind members that the Bloc Québécois and Quebec are strongly opposed to this. Four times now, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously called on the federal government to abandon that idea. It is no exaggeration to say that everyone in Quebec is against it. Seldom have we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose this very bad idea of the federal government, which just wants to cater to Bay Street.

Let the federal government and Bay Street take note: The Bloc Québécois will always stand in the way of creating a single Canada-wide securities regulator.

Having a financial markets authority is essential to Quebec's development. This is nothing short of an attack on our ability to keep our head offices. Preserving Quebec's distinct economic pillars is essential to our development. We will not let the federal government get away with this.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill C‑30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and also thank and congratulate André Gagnon for his invaluable help and his kindness. I wish him a happy retirement.

To answer my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon we will finish the debate on the opposition motion. This evening we will debate and vote on the estimates.

Tomorrow we will resume debate at report stage of the same bill, Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

Next week, priority will be given once again to Bill C‑30 at third reading stage because it is absolutely essential. We want to send this bill to the Senate as soon as possible of course.

Our other priorities will be Bill C‑12 on net-zero emissions, Bill C‑10 on broadcasting and Bill C‑6 on conversion therapy.

In closing, since this is my last Thursday statement before the House rises for the summer, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the incredible and at times difficult work that you did all year to guide us in these hybrid sittings of the House, which added an extra challenge. I also want to thank the clerks, the interpreters, the support staff, the pages and all the parliamentary staff without whom we would absolutely not be able to do our job every day.

Many thanks to all of you.

Government Programs

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the CRB is helping and has helped two million Canadians, and at present Canadians have access to 38 weeks under the CRB. If opposition parties do not support Bill C-30, Canadians will end their benefits in the weeks to come. We can reverse that. We can pass Bill C-30. We can give Canadians the extra weeks they deserve, give them more flexible access to EI, give them access to the wage subsidy, and 500,000 training and work opportunities.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the CRB is part of a comprehensive set of emergency and recovery measures to support Canadian workers and businesses. Through the CRB, if opposition parties support Bill C-30, Canadians can have access to up to 50 weeks of benefits. Canadians can also have access to more flexible EI benefits. Businesses can continue to have access to the wage subsidy, and we can help Canadians re-enter the labour market by creating 500,000 new training and work opportunities and launching the Canada recovery hiring program.

This is what is at stake when the opposition does not help get Bill C-30 through.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Renaud, for that testimony.

Mrs. Dubé, a month or two ago, this committee studied Bill C‑24, and, as Ms. Dancho said earlier, I tried to introduce an amendment so that the employment insurance program would provide 50 weeks of sickness benefits.

The Liberals insisted that the NDP did not understand the software that processes sickness benefits, that it is really difficult to make changes to it, and, for that reason, they did not support my amendment. They considered that it would make no sense at all to provide a royal recommendation for the amendment.

In Bill C‑30, the government proposes to increase the benefit period from 15 to 26 weeks. It will be a year or two before that measure comes into force. The Liberals were opposed to my amendment because they said it was difficult to make changes to the software. Now they are committing to make a change to the software.

So why do they not extend the period to 50 weeks now instead of extending it to 26 weeks? In the coming years, they will once more be able to make the argument that it takes a lot of effort to change the system that pays the benefits.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is with some emotion that I appear before you this afternoon. Even though this is my third term, this is the first time I have had the privilege of defending a bill in parliamentary committee. I feel very privileged to do so this afternoon. I want to welcome all the witnesses. I would like to extend my greetings to all the members of the parliamentary committee.

You will understand that today I am primarily here to convince my dear Liberal colleagues to give royal recommendation to Bill C‑265. This bill was supported by the majority of the opposition parties in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, if it doesn't receive the royal recommendation of the Liberal government after committee study, my bill won't be able to proceed.

Today, I hope to convince you that 15 weeks is clearly not enough, but 26 weeks isn't enough either. I will try to convince you that 50 weeks is what is needed to be compassionate and to ensure that vulnerable workers who have not chosen to be sick can count on the financial support of EI special sickness benefits for 50 weeks.

The reason we're talking about 50 weeks is because several studies show that, on average, people need more than 26 weeks and others need more than 50 weeks. Some illnesses require an absence that goes beyond 15 weeks and 26 weeks. I'll give you a few examples. According to evidence‑based studies, it takes an average of 37 weeks to recover from colon cancer. If you are unfortunate enough to have rectal cancer, it can take up to 47 weeks. The cases are documented.

Since the data are known and conclusive, I don't understand, and neither do the citizens of Quebec and Canada, why the government doesn't want to move forward with my bill and allow sick workers who are fighting a serious illness to obtain not 15 weeks or 26 weeks, but up to 50 weeks. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that we can afford it. He has already released two studies on this issue, and he confirms, not surprisingly, that we can afford to provide these vulnerable workers with the protection and the tools they need to fight their illness with dignity in order to return to work and, more importantly, to maintain their employment relationship.

Some employers have made it quite clear that increased premiums—either employers' or employees'—are, after all, reasonable. It could be offered to workers who cannot work temporarily because of illness and who need financial support to pay for their care and assisted medical transportation. These workers, who may have paid into the program all their lives, do not need the financial insecurity that the EI program currently creates by keeping special sickness benefits at 15 weeks.

You will tell me—especially my Liberal colleagues—that the government promised in the budget to increase benefits to 26 weeks. We know that 26 weeks isn't enough. The data already clearly show that. Moreover, this increase to 26 weeks could be in place through order in council by 2022.

I ask you to close your eyes and think about the people who are finishing their 15th week of benefits today, who have heard that they may receive 26 weeks of benefits, and to whom I will have to say that those 26 weeks won't be available right away. I'll have to tell them that the government hasn't provided for this increase in its budget in a binding way, which means that once the budget is approved and voted on through ways and means and through Bill C‑30, the government will have the discretion to wait until 2022 to implement this increase. I think this is playing with the hearts of people who are sick and want to fight the disease on a level playing field.

We don't choose to be sick, and we don't choose our type of sickness. We cater to workers who have no coverage, no collective bargaining agreement or private health insurance plan.

These people have often worked very hard in their lives. One day they get sick. It could be the person who works at your local convenience store and whom you have seen every morning for the past 10 years. She gets a little more than minimum wage, but not much more, and she doesn't have private health insurance. If she has rectal cancer and has to miss 47 weeks of work because of illness, she'll be paid for 15 weeks and receive 55% of her salary. Do you honestly think that a worker can live on 55% of their salary?

It's hard enough for someone who knows they have a long struggle ahead of them and that recovery is necessary to [Technical difficulty—Editor] get back to work, but it becomes even harder if benefits end after 15 or 26 weeks.

Today, we can say that, in total, about 150,000 people are dropped from the EI system each year. That's 411 new Émilie Sansfaçons a day who are struggling and are suddenly losing the financial support of EI special sickness benefits.

You'll understand that my heart goes out to these workers. I've received a lot of calls and emails encouraging me to convince members of Parliament, especially my Liberal colleagues, to seek royal assent for Bill C‑265 and to listen to the 620,000 people who have signed Marie‑Hélène Dubé's petition. She's asking you to extend the duration of benefits to 50 weeks, because it's quite obvious that 15 or 26 weeks isn't enough.

I am ready to answer questions, Mr. Chair.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from that party. A few days ago, last Friday, about 10:30 a.m., the Conservatives decided they wanted to shut down Parliament. They moved a motion to shut down Parliament. They had enough work; they wanted to go out for cocktails, or drinks or whatever. We wanted to work. They wanted to shut down Parliament. Then we wanted to extend the hours and they refused. After that, they started filibustering.

Bill C-30 is absolutely essential. Canadians need that bill. We hope the Conservatives will stop blocking everything?

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind everyone what is really important to Canadians and what the House can do to support them as we finish the battle against COVID-19.

Unfortunately, over the past two weeks, the Conservatives have used every procedural trick in the book to delay debate on Bill C-30. Canadians expect better. They expect us to get this bill across the finish line.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the issue of rushing this through. Members can look at the number of days that we have actually sat and the agenda we have had to deal with. Many pieces of legislation have dealt specifically with the coronavirus and the pandemic. Initially, there was a great deal of support from all sides of the House as we tried to pass legislation that was critically important to dealing with the pandemic. Today there is still critically important legislation to pass, such as Bill C-30.

Not a day went by that the government, while responsible for the agenda of the House of Commons, did not attempt to bring forward good, solid legislation to debate. We have attempted on several occasions to be able to—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will now get back to the premise of my speech, the 2019 campaign in which every Bloc Québécois candidate made a serious promise to voters, a commitment made solemnly and with conviction: Whenever we are in the House, we will make decisions, take a position and support bills and motions that defend Quebeckers’ interests and values.

Even today, it is still the question we ask ourselves when it comes time to choose which direction to take, either here or in committee. A time allocation motion, closure, a gag order, whatever we may call it, there really is no good word for it and we find it chilling, because freedom of speech, parliamentary privilege, is fundamental. It is something we deeply respect and will defend at all costs, like we did with this morning's motion, which just squeaked by.

The Bloc Québécois has fervently defended this idea since its inception, 30 years ago tomorrow. I think that we supported a time allocation motion more often in the past two weeks than in all the 30 years of my party’s existence.

Sometimes, situations force us to step on people’s toes to defend our values, and sometimes that is justifiable.

The parliamentary toolkit contains another tool that is just as questionable, in my opinion, and many of my colleagues probably agree with me. It is the filibustering of debates, either here in the House or in committee. The filibuster consists in droning on endlessly, taking up debate time to prevent a vote or to prevent something that is against our convictions from happening. At that point, the other move that is just as questionable, time allocation, becomes equally justifiable.

In recent months, we have supported time allocation for Bill C‑6 and for medical assistance in dying, an extremely sensitive issue on which Quebec has reached a consensus. People were waiting for the bill. They were waiting for a decision from the House of Commons. They were enduring unbearable suffering and they wanted the freedom to decide when they could end it.

At that point, we asked ourselves the same question. We asked ourselves whether we were going to accept closure if it reflected the will, the values and the interests of Quebeckers. Since it was a simple question, and the answer was yes, we believed we were duty bound to do whatever was necessary to have these bills and motions adopted.

Bill C‑30 is also important for businesses. It is important for the economic recovery, since it will allow entrepreneurs in our regions to get back on their feet after the pandemic. Obviously, we would have preferred that the democratic process take its normal course but, when it is clear that someone is trying to delay the process by every means possible for reasons that are often purely ideological, in order to please their base or collect funds by plucking at the heartstrings of certain groups of Canadians, we believe that it is our duty to counter these manoeuvres using another parliamentary tool. We believe that, in those circumstances, it is reasonable.

That was the case with Bill C‑10. How did we get here? My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska talked about that earlier. It is true that, at first, when the bill was tabled, we found a lot of holes in it. There were more holes in it than there are in Swiss cheese, like in a brand new paint by numbers. It took six years' preparation to come up with a bill and there was still an enormous amount of work to do.

I do not want to lay blame on anyone, but I think that, from the moment the bill was introduces, the opposition parties were unanimous in thinking that there were too many things missing for it to be acceptable. The industry was happy because a bill was finally being introduced to amend the Broadcasting Act, which had already been obsolete for several years and which was enacted in 1991, at a time when we were recording songs broadcast over the radio on four-track cassettes.

Since we were considerably behind, it was not surprising that the industry applauded the tabling of a bill to review the Broadcasting Act. It should have been reviewed 20 years ago, it should have been reviewed 10 years ago; it should be reviewed on a regular basis.

We soon realized how much work there was to be done. In a way, when a member of the House decides to vote in favour of a bill so that it can be studied in committee, that member is making a commitment to say that certain elements of the bill are not very good and need to be worked on. That work falls to us. It is unfortunate, but we have to do it. We have to improve Bill C‑10 because the cultural industry, our media and the field of broadcasting in Canada have drastically changed. Today's broadcasting industry is nothing like what it was in 1991, when the last version of the Broadcasting Act was passed. I was working in radio at the time. When I walk into a radio studio these days, in 2021, I am completely lost and I have to be shown around because I do not know what anything is. Everything is different today, except for the mike, which has not changed much.

When we agree to work on a bill in committee, we are committing to making improvements. That is how we ended up with more than 100 amendments. At first, there were about 120 amendments proposed by the NDP, the Green Party, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

Before proposing these amendments, we consulted people. We heard from people who were interested in sharing their concerns with us. A lot of people wanted to talk about the Broadcasting Act, because it affected a huge number of stakeholders, including community radio and television stations, broadcasters, cable companies, artists and online companies. A lot of people wanted to share their concerns and remind us to include certain things in the bill.

Independent broadcasters also depend on online companies, as well as conventional broadcasters, such as the traditional cable companies, to broadcast their content. In short, there were a lot of witnesses to listen to. We came to realize that this would be a monumental task. There is a reason there were 120 amendments: because there was a lot of work to do. We did it.

I met with representatives of the cultural industry. We exchanged many messages, emails and calls and held many meetings. These people represent more than 200,000 artists, creators, artisans, authors and other people who earn a living from the cultural industry, which has significant spinoffs. Canada's cultural industry generates billions of dollars in economic spinoffs. That is no trivial matter, and we cannot let an industry like that down. We love culture, the arts, our artists and our distinct culture, but we also like money. This is a profitable industry that does not cost us a fortune. Far from being a millstone dragging us down, we benefit from it. It sets us apart and identifies us. There were 120 amendments, but they were serious amendments. They were important. We worked hard, but then came the events of late April.

Did we do things the best way possible? In hindsight, that is a reasonable question. Was it right to eliminate clause 4.1? Maybe not. Is the result what the Conservatives say it is? It is not.

Bill C‑10 contains provisions that clearly protect social media users. As important as it was to protect social media users, it was also important to regulate social media platforms, which play a role in broadcasting and are involved in broadcasting. Social media has an impact on the broadcasting system. YouTube is the largest online music broadcaster in Canada.

We would have had to tell Apple Music that it was going to be regulated, but that YouTube was not because it also has a social media service. That makes no sense. Apple Music would have been right to tell us off, saying that we had done a horrible job and that we needed to go back to the drawing board.

We had to be able to regulate social media for their broadcasting activities, while protecting their users. That is what is clearly stated in the bill, and that is what will come out of the revised Broadcasting Act in the end.

There was never any question of limiting Quebeckers' and Canadians' freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a value that Canadians of all stripes hold dear. Let us not compete to see who loves freedom of speech the most. It is fundamental for us, for Quebeckers and for Canadians. Of that there is no doubt.

What party in the House would have blindly voted for a bill that would actually limit freedom of expression? It does not make sense. It is merely a question of ideology. It is merely an attempt to fan the flames, to offend sensibilities. Perhaps it will pay off, I do not know.

When the problem arose in committee and the question was raised, the Conservatives said that we absolutely had to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice. These ministers had to issue a charter statement. They had to see what was going on. We needed a guarantee from the minister that the bill complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if we were going to do that, we should hear from experts. The Conservatives wanted to invite experts back.

We were wasting time on a bill when we already did not have much time to spare. We wondered what we should with that. Having reflected on it, I am convinced that what is in the bill will protect freedom of expression and social media users, in other words individuals, people. We decided that if there was any uncertainty, we needed to get to the bottom of it, and we had a duty to do so. It was early May, and we were running out of time, but no matter, we had to get it done, and that is what we did. We heard from the experts that the Conservatives wanted us to invite. We heard from law professors and people who believe that this bill goes against this provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and who claim it jeopardizes freedom of expression. I want to listen to all sides before I form an opinion.

However, we also heard from experts such as Pierre Trudel, a professor of law who is renowned across the country. He, too, is a leading authority, and he had a completely different opinion. We heard from Ms. Yale, the chair of the major study that resulted in the Yale report almost a year and a half ago. She also testified and shared her views. Ms. Yale also did not think there was a threat.

There is nothing wrong with expressing doubts and saying that some experts have a certain view. However, at some point, we must respect the democratic process. We listened to everyone and showed good will and good faith. Other experts expressed different views before the committee. Through a vote, the committee decided that we would finally move forward and that there was no threat. The democratic process can come down on either side and we must respect it. Our Conservative colleagues decided to continue filibustering the committee by giving interminable speeches, and we saw things get out of hand.

I was really disappointed by the comments made by the member for Lethbridge in the Lethbridge Herald. She described Quebec artists as being a niche group who are stuck in the 1990s and unable to adapt, so they have to make a living off government grants. I spent 30 years working in the media, in radio and in television, surrounded by artists, being part of their community. If I had had more hair to begin with, I think whatever is left would have fallen out. That took my breath away. I cannot believe that we did not hear a heartfelt apology in the House, either from the leader of the official opposition or from the member herself. I found her comments, which have been denounced by arts organizations, beyond sad and terribly unfortunate.

When we started studying Bill C‑10, I decided that I would do exactly what the Bloc Québécois had promised to do during the 2019 election campaign in Quebec. My colleague from Jonquière once told me that if I really wanted to connect with and be attuned to my constituents' realities, I should lace up my shoes, hit the streets and listen to what my constituents want me to support. That is exactly what I did.

I have been in contact with the cultural sector from the beginning, especially in Quebec, but also, by extension, Canada, since the associations that represent the artists and the industry in Quebec also represent the industry across Canada.

We also listened to francophone communities outside Quebec, which were also needing the protections offered by this bill. We listened to them, we moved forward and we proposed amendments to protect francophone and Quebec culture, and most of these amendments were accepted.

We worked hard to improve this bill. As we were approaching the end of the road, or in this case, the end of the session, and we had made some major gains for the cultural sector, we knew that it was not the time to give up and call it a day because there would not be enough time.

This industry suffered during the pandemic. It has been waiting for a bill, a review of the Broadcasting Act, for far too long. Remember what things were like in 1991. We did not have high-speed Internet. We could not always connect. We had to listen to a sound like a fax machine for about seven minutes. When we managed to connect, we could not just download a photo. If we wanted to do that, we had to start the download the night before in order to see the photo in the morning. We were far from streaming music, downloading videos and watching shows online like we do today. The Broadcasting Act has been completely out of touch with reality for a long time.

As I was saying, we do not have much time left to finish working on this bill, which is so important for the cultural industry, the cultural community, broadcasters, independent broadcasters and creators, as well as for the unique identity that we have here with our culture. Whether we are talking about Quebec or English Canada, we are not the same as the United States and there are marked differences between our culture and American culture.

What should we do? Are we going to allow the web giants to rake in billions of dollars when we are not asking them for much? Are we going to say that it does not matter if they do not produce our shows, that it is a free market and that we should let them set up shop here with their billions of dollars and their means of production and let them do what they want? Come on. That is completely ludicrous.

The Yale report mentioned this last year, and it is just as relevant today: We must act quickly. When action is urgently needed, we must do what it takes to get results and achieve our goal.

The Bloc Québécois made an unusual but necessary decision in supporting time allocation for Bill C‑10 in committee. It is a rare measure and I hope we will not have to take it again, but it was necessary. We made a commitment to work for Quebec, the cultural community and our media. We are also committed to keeping our culture alive. In Quebec, we have been in the habit of fighting for our culture for quite some time. That is perhaps the difference: We have been rolling up our sleeves for a longer time now. We will not give up the fight.

Contrary to what our Conservative colleagues think, this bill is essential and it is urgent. We owe it to our cultural community, as well as to Quebec and Canadian media.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. If the NDP truly wants to support Canadian workers, let me suggest one simple thing they can do: support Bill C-30. This budget bill will extend the income supports to the end of September and Canadians desperately need that to happen. It is by supporting Bill C-30 that we can act together to provide Canadian workers with the support they need to finish the fight against COVID.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really care about the Canadian economy, if they really care about Canadian workers and if they really care about Canadian businesses, let me suggest one simple and very practical thing they can do, and that is to support Bill C-30, the budget implementation bill. This essential legislation extends the wage subsidy, rent support and the CRB. We need it to finish the fight against COVID and to punch our way out of the COVID recession. The Conservatives need to support it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government has told us time and again that its most important relationship is with indigenous peoples. We know that in the last few days the Liberal Party has refused to acknowledge the genocide against indigenous peoples, but if we look at Bill C-30 there are some major gaps. One of the biggest crises first nations face here in Manitoba is a lack of housing. We know that overcrowded housing has been a major contributor to the spread of COVID-19 in first nations communities, yet Bill C-30 has no commitment to indigenous-led housing initiatives to deal with the crisis that exists on the ground and the truly third-world living conditions.

How can the government claim that its most important relationship is with indigenous peoples and fail to act on one of the most significant crises they face?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

Bill C‑30—Time Allocation Motion

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the questions, because it gives me the opportunity to point out that our concern for creators, cultural workers and tourism companies is exactly why it is so urgent to support Bill C‑30. These people, these Quebeckers, are the ones who need the support this budget will give them.

However, the only way we can help them is with the support of progressive parties in the House. That is what Canadians want, and that is our job.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sympathetic with the position that we need to get Bill C-30 through. There are many provisions there that are helpful. However, on principle, I have always stood against time allocation motions. The House exists to examine legislation and to take the time it takes to review it.

One of the things I am concerned about is that we seem to be under the false time pressure on many bills that an election is looming. We have a fixed election date law. In order to have an election looming, somebody in government must be prepared to break that law because the next election is in October 2023. This bill is important to get through, for sure, because there are immediate provisions that help Canadians, but other legislation continues to need to be studied.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that there is no prospect of an election any time soon, unless her government is prepared to break the law?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance knows full well, the NDP has been pushing to stop the slashing of the benefits contained within Bill C-30. We have a situation in which benefits will be markedly reduced at a time when Canadians need those benefits to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. This will have a dramatic impact on people who are still struggling. Even if the government believes that fewer people might be going for the CRB, that fewer people will need it, the reality is that those who do need that benefit can use that $500 per week.

Instead of putting in place time allocation, why does the government not stop the slashing of the CRB so all Canadians who need that benefit at this crucial time, as variants hit our country, can use it to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, for the second time in only a few days, the government will shut down debate to keep parliamentarians, the elected representatives of the people, from doing their job and participating in a fair and balanced debate where every point of view can be properly heard. Once again, as it did with Bill C‑10, the government is shutting down debate on Bill C‑30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

It is never a win for Canadians when the government does this. Unfortunately, it has done this twice: last week on Bill C-10, which is an attack on freedom of speech; and today, on a main issue of the government, which is the debate on the budget.

Why did the government not do its homework?

Why did it not let us debate Bill C-30 when required? Why did the Minister of Finance move an amendment last week in the House when she very well could have done so at the parliamentary committee?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Motion

moved:

That in relation to Bill C‑30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his moving and heartfelt speech. It will be hard for me to follow that, and I will not be able to convey such a deep respect for human dignity in light of the horrific events that occurred all over the country and throughout its history. I thank my colleague for his speech and I will do my best to speak to Bill C‑30, the budget implementation bill.

There are some good things in this budget, but there are also things missing from it. I will obviously get back to this, since that is part of my job as an opposition member. What worries me most about this budget is that the government still seems to be putting a band-aid on a cancer and scrambling to fill in the potholes. This budget lacks vision. It is as though the government cannot see the forest for the trees.

We have not yet emerged from the crisis we have been dealing with for the past year and a half. However, the vaccination numbers, especially in Quebec and Ontario, are reassuring. We are on track for 75% of people to get their second dose by the end of the summer. Canada is behind many other countries, but I think we are getting through this together. This crisis was a huge tragedy. Tens of thousands of our fellow citizens got sick and will get sick in the coming years. Many others died.

Over the past 18 months, we have also realized how poorly prepared we were, and I am worried that future events could catch us just as unprepared. We want to believe that we learn from our mistakes and that things will be different next time, yet we have been through SARS and other epidemics before. Each time, we were not prepared and were caught unawares.

Both our social safety net and our health care systems had flaws and weaknesses. However, instead of fixing them, at times we made them worse, including by making cuts to health transfers to the provinces, something that was started by the Conservatives and carried on by the Liberals. Outside of some one-time measures, it does not seem like the government is really enhancing our capabilities and our public services to provide high-quality services and care with the right equipment to get through a pandemic like this one.

Make no mistake, this pandemic will not be the last. Pandemics happened several times in the 20th century, they have already happened a few times in the 21st century, and they will continue to happen. Will we be prepared next time?

Will our health care system and professionals be treated well? Will we provide our orderlies and nurses with better working conditions and decent shifts? Will we collaborate to ensure that we do not let down seniors in long-term care? The death toll at the beginning of the pandemic, especially at the Herron long-term care home in Dorval, on Montreal's West Island, was appalling.

Will we change the way we work? In terms of workplace relations, will we continue to work from home, or will we go back to the office? What will we do to prepare for next time? Will we have enough medical equipment for everyone?

Will Canada have the industrial capacity to do vaccine research, but also to design, create and manufacture vaccines as well? Over the past few years, our country has lost its entire domestic vaccine production capacity, and we saw how unprepared we were for the pandemic as a result and how dependent we were on our neighbours to manufacture vaccines, medical equipment, respirators and ventilators.

Will we have enough oxygen cylinders next time? If the next virus is more aggressive, more contagious and more deadly, will we be able to overcome it and ensure that our social safety net can protect everyone and leave no one behind?

I believe that this budget addresses some but not all of the short-term needs, but unfortunately, we are not planning for the post-pandemic reality and the new society that we could collectively create if we had the resources. We could create a society that is fairer, more prosperous, more equitable, greener, and also better prepared to face these kinds of challenges, because this will not be the last time that we have to.

This will also not be the last time that climate crises could worsen because of global warming. That is another subject, but it is still related because of the public health problems it can cause, whether it be respiratory problems or the spread of certain viruses, or simply disasters that will be extremely costly to both the agricultural sector specifically and societies in general.

This budget and this budget implementation bill have flaws. The pandemic demonstrated that we had societies that were very inequitable, and these inequalities have widened considerably over the past 18 months. I have seen statistics showing that the wealth of the richest families and individuals in Canada grew by about $78 billion during the pandemic. We are talking about less than 1% of the population. While most people were suffering, losing their jobs, watching their small businesses struggle to survive or even close down, the ultrarich were lining their pockets.

The Liberal government has not included any concrete measures in this budget to attack this excessive, outrageous and indecent increase in wealth, except for a special tax on the purchase of certain boats, luxury vehicles or private planes. A super-rich person who pocketed tens of millions of dollars in profit just has to avoid buying a private plane, and this measure will change absolutely nothing in their life.

As Oxfam Canada revealed a few months ago, as a result of this rise in inequality, people from big companies, like Amazon's Jeff Bezos, made truly gargantuan profits during this pandemic. Jeff Bezos has approximately 600,000 employees around the world, which is quite a lot. If Mr. Bezos took out his cheque book and wrote 600,000 cheques for $110,000, one for each of his employees, he would still be just as rich as he was before the pandemic. Needless to say, he was already far from poor before the pandemic.

What are the Liberals presenting in this budget to reduce inequality and make the super-rich, multi-millionaires and billionaires pay their share? Not much, as I said. The budget talks about boats and planes, but that is about it.

The government could have imposed a tax on wealth. It could have imposed an additional tax of 1% on people with a fortune of over $20 million. That does not seem excessive to me. It would free up a considerable amount of revenue so we could have social programs that would take care of people and a truly public health care system that could meet the needs of the population. Why is there no tax on wealth?

I mentioned Amazon and Jeff Bezos. Why is there no special tax on excessive profits during a pandemic? In the riding of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie and pretty much all over Montreal, small businesses have suffered and have had a hard time making ends meet. Many of them have gone out of business even as giant Internet corporations like Amazon and its ilk have raked in the cash. Not only are web giants not yet being taxed by the Liberal government on what they earn in Canada and Quebec, but they have also been reaping obscene profits during the pandemic. The Liberal government does not have the courage to do anything about this.

Why has the government not altered its approach to tax havens? Every serious assessment of the situation, including those by the Department of Finance and the Conference Board of Canada, tells us that we are losing tens of billions of dollars every year because the super-rich can squirrel their money away in the Cayman Islands or Barbados so they do not have to pay a penny in taxes in Canada or, if they do, it is a pittance. This has been going on for years, with neither Conservatives nor Liberals doing anything about it. Most of these tax havens were created by Canadian banks, which were able to make rules that suited them so they could enable their clients and KPMG clients to avoid paying tax here by using financial schemes that no federal government has made any real effort to take down.

As professor Alain Deneault has explained, if you are injured and you have to wait in an emergency room for 10 or 20 hours to see a doctor, it is because of tax havens. When you are waiting for a bus on a street corner in the rain and the bus does not come because it is broken down, there is no one to fix it and public transit is deficient, that is because of tax havens. If our communities do not have sufficient social housing and co-operative housing, it is because the rich are not paying their fair share. It is because of tax havens.

I wish we had a government that had the courage to tackle these issues. An NDP government will do just that one day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

Before I do so, I want to take the opportunity afforded to members in this place to speak to another issue of national importance.

Canada has stood in mourning with the survivors of residential schools and their families after the recent tragic discovery of 215 children in an unmarked grave at the former Kamloops residential school. Last week, I was asked by the former chief of the Tk'emlúps first nation, Manny Jules, to read a poem of healing for the nation, and I ask members for their understanding and patience as I do so now. I hope from the way he read it to me, that I can do this justice.

This poem is entitled Monster, a Residential School Experience, by Dennis Saddleman:

I HATE YOU RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
I HATE YOU
YOU’RE A MONSTER
A HUGE HUNGRY MONSTER
BUILT WITH STEEL BONES
BUILT WITH CEMENT FLESH
YOU’RE A MONSTER
BUILT TO DEVOUR
INNOCENT NATIVE CHILDREN
YOU’RE A COLD-HEARTED MONSTER
COLD AS THE CEMENT FLOORS
YOU HAVE NO LOVE
NO GENTLE ATMOSPHERE
YOUR UGLY FACE GROOVED WITH RED BRICKS
YOUR MONSTER EYES GLARE
FROM GRIMY WINDOWS
MONSTER EYES SO EVIL
MONSTER EYES WATCHING
TERRIFIED CHILDREN
COWER WITH SHAME
I HATE YOU RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL I HATE YOU
YOU’RE A SLIMY MONSTER
OOZING IN THE SHADOWS OF MY PAST
GO AWAY LEAVE ME ALONE
YOU’RE FOLLOWING ME FOLLOWING ME WHEREVER I GO
YOU’RE IN MY DREAMS IN MY MEMORIES
GO AWAY MONSTER GO AWAY
I HATE YOU YOU’RE FOLLOWING ME
I HATE YOU RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL I HATE YOU
YOU’RE A MONSTER WITH HUGE WATERY MOUTH
MOUTH OF DOUBLE DOORS
YOUR WIDE MOUTH TOOK ME
YOUR YELLOW STAINED TEETH CHEWED
THE INDIAN OUT OF ME
YOUR TEETH CRUNCHED MY LANGUAGE
GRINDED MY RITUALS AND MY TRADITIONS
YOUR TASTE BUDS BECAME BITTER
WHEN YOU TASTED MY RED SKIN
YOU SWALLOWED ME WITH DISGUST
YOUR FACE WRINKLED WHEN YOU
TASTED MY STRONG PRIDE
I HATE YOU RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL I HATE YOU
YOU’RE A MONSTER
YOUR THROAT MUSCLES FORCED ME
DOWN TO YOUR STOMACH
YOUR THROAT MUSCLES SQUEEZED MY HAPPINESS
SQUEEZED MY DREAMS
SQUEEZED MY NATIVE VOICE
YOUR THROAT BECAME CLOGGED WITH MY SACRED SPIRIT
YOU COUGHED AND YOU CHOKED
FOR YOU CANNOT WITH STAND MY
SPIRITUAL SONGS AND DANCES
I HATE YOU RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL I HATE YOU
YOU’RE A MONSTER
YOUR STOMACH UPSET EVERY TIME I WET MY BED
YOUR STOMACH RUMBLED WITH ANGER
EVERY TIME I FELL ASLEEP IN CHURCH
Your stomach growled at me every time I broke the school rules
Your stomach was full You burped
You felt satisfied You rubbed your belly and you didn’t care
You didn’t care how you ate up my native Culture
You didn’t care if you were messy
if you were piggy
You didn’t care as long as you ate up my Indianness
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster
Your veins clotted with cruelty and torture
Your blood poisoned with loneliness and despair
Your heart was cold it pumped fear into me
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster
Your intestines turned me into foul entrails
Your anal squeezed me
squeezed my confidence
squeezed my self respect
Your anal squeezed
then you dumped me
Dumped me without parental skills
without life skills
Dumped me without any form of character
without individual talents
without a hope for success

I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster
You dumped me in the toilet then
You flushed out my good nature
my personalities
I hate you Residential School I hate you
You’re a monster………I hate hate hate you
Thirty three years later
I rode my chevy pony to Kamloops
From the highway I saw the monster
My Gawd! The monster is still alive
I hesitated I wanted to drive on
but something told me to stop
I parked in front of the Residential School
in front of the monster
The monster saw me and it stared at me
The monster saw me and I stared back
We both never said anything for a long time
Finally with a lump in my throat
I said, “Monster I forgive you.”
The monster broke into tears
The monster cried and cried
His huge shoulders shook
He motioned for me to come forward
He asked me to sit on his lappy stairs
The monster spoke
You know I didn’t like my Government Father
I didn’t like my Catholic Church Mother
I’m glad the Native People adopted me
They took me as one of their own
They fixed me up Repaired my mouth of double doors
Washed my window eyes with cedar and fir boughs
They cleansed me with sage and sweetgrass
Now my good spirit lives
The Native People let me stay on their land
They could of burnt me you know instead they let me live
so People can come here to school restore or learn about their culture
The monster said, “I’m glad the Native People gave me another chance
I’m glad Dennis you gave me another chance
The monster smiled
I stood up I told the monster I must go
Ahead of me is my life. My people are waiting for me
I was at the door of my chevy pony
The monster spoke, “Hey you forgot something
I turned around I saw a ghost child running down the cement steps
It ran towards me and it entered my body
I looked over to the monster I was surprised
I wasn’t looking at a monster anymore
I was looking at an old school In my heart I thought
This is where I earned my diploma of survival
I was looking at an old Residential School who
became my elder of my memories
I was looking at a tall building with four stories
stories of hope
stories of dreams
stories of renewal
and stories of tomorrow

That, again, is a poem called Monster, A Residential School Experience, by Dennis Saddleman. Again, I was asked by a the former chief of the Tk‘emlúps first nation, Manny Jules, to read that as a way to help the nation heal. When he read it to me, it was quite emotional and I hope I did that justice.

The government continues to move forward on this file, something that is very important, and it is time for action. As an opposition, we have asked for a clear action plan by July 1 on calls to action 71 through 76 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. All first nations communities across Canada need that healing. It is time we listen to them and follow their lead and have action.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

I would like to note one thing that concerns me in Bill C‑30: the reduction of the Canada emergency wage subsidy, including for the hardest-hit sectors like the cultural industry and the tourism sector.

The minister has the power to increase the percentage of this subsidy and even extend it to November. With no predictability being offered to these hard-hit sectors, we have little guarantee that they will get the support they need. I would like a commitment from the Minister of Finance on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a continuation of what the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus committed to back when this all began a year ago; that we would have the backs of Canadians and be there in a very real and tangible way. We developed a suite of programs and supports so Canadians would be in a better position to get through the pandemic, and this is a continuation of that.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the passage of the legislation and how it would continue to provide ongoing support for Canadians?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Shefford.

What the political parties in the House did, with the exception of Bloc Québécois, was despicable and inexcusable.

In a time of crisis, the government decided to implement a program to support workers and businesses that might not be able to make it through the crisis. That money will have to be paid back through taxes and the collective debt.

The Liberal Party and the other political parties are distorting the spirit of the bill by claiming that political parties are like non-profit organizations. The Prime Minister ordered the agency administering this program to cast the net wide. He got what he wanted. The Liberal Party made $1 million from it, when it already had a record fundraising year. That is unacceptable, and the amendment that the government is proposing to Bill C-30 is despicable. As of this summer, the political parties will no longer be eligible for the Canada emergency wage subsidy, but they have already emptied the cookie jar. That is shameful and inexcusable. I would be ashamed to—

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

The Economy

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his French. Hats off to him. I do not congratulate him on his comments, however, because what he said is not good for Quebec's economy, and everyone agrees on that.

Everyone knows that the Liberals are looking at their election timetable and getting as excited as a kid in a candy store. I do not understand why they are reopening the securities regulator fight in Bill C‑30. I do not understand why they want to go to war with the Quebec business community at a time when our businesses want to focus on the economic recovery. I do not understand why they are prepared to fight for funding for an office that is pointless if the Liberals listen to what Quebec wants.

Are the Liberals that invested in wiping out Montreal's financial hub?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this involves Quebec's business community.

In Bill C‑30, the Bloc Québécois cut funding to the office responsible for establishing a Canada-wide securities commission. It is a small victory, but a great relief for our economy as we have been fighting for 40 years to prevent the federal government from collapsing Montreal's financial sector for Toronto's benefit. We have not yet won. The Liberals are trying to reinstate funding for the office with an amendment to Bill C‑30.

Will they withdraw this amendment, or do they intend to start another war with Quebec over securities?

The House resumed from June 10, consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-30―Notice of time allocation motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.

If you will allow me, I did not have an opportunity to thank you for all of the service you have provided us. I wish you well in your retirement. I hope you do not mind allowing me to take a moment to thank you and tell you that it has been a pleasure to work with you.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary.

As I am sure he is aware, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-30. In my presentation, I decided to focus on something that seems eminently dangerous, and I do not regret doing so.

As for the rest, since there are more pros than cons overall, the Bloc supports it. Of course, the support programs for small businesses, for example, must be renewed.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑30 laid the foundation for an undertaking that Quebeckers, in a rare show of unanimity, opposed. That is why I am pleased to say that I am very happy about a major victory won by my party, the Bloc Québécois, and by Quebec.

Bill C‑30 would have renewed and even significantly increased the budget for the Canadian Securities Transition Office to maintain it and accelerate its work. The government wanted to spend $120 million on it or even more if Parliament voted to do so in an appropriation act. Fortunately, thanks to my colleague's tireless work, the Standing Committee on Finance listened to reason and agreed to our demand to cut that clause from the bill and cut funding for the organization, whose raison d'être was centralization.

I would note that the office was created in 2009 to set up a single securities regulator in Toronto for the whole country. If the plan were to come to fruition, regulation of the entire financial sector would have been concentrated in Toronto. We are fiercely opposed to that because it is a heinous attack on our ability to keep our head offices and businesses viable here.

Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues from all parties in the House to uphold the amendment adopted by the committee, which will put an end, once and for all, to this harmful bill to strip Quebec, the provinces and the territories. If the amendment stands, the office should close its doors in the next few months and bring its centralizing mandate to an end. That is what the committee democratically recommended, and the government must respect its will. It must also respect the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec, which called on Ottawa four times to abandon another such attempt to interfere.

I also want to again point out that this bill generated an incredible response, as stakeholders from all sectors rallied in a seldom seen show of unity and spoke with one strong voice to oppose it. All political parties in the National Assembly and stakeholders in the business community, financial sector and labour-sponsored funds condemned it, and with good reason. It is rare for all these people to be of the same mind.

Once again Ottawa is sticking its nose where it does not belong despite many Supreme Court rulings confirming that securities are not a federal jurisdiction. My colleagues across the way might say that they got the green light to interfere in this area in 2018. I would remind them that this authorization was subject to conditions: not to act unilaterally, co‑operate with the provinces, and be limited to systemic risk analysis and management.

If every single political and economic actor agrees, that is mainly because this is a fight between Bay Street and Quebec. I hope members will pardon my concern, but the plan for this Canadian body was tailor-made for the small window that the Supreme Court opened to the federal government. Even assuming that the federal government respects the conditions that were imposed, the result is nonetheless the creation of a single securities commission and therefore the marginalization of Quebec's financial position.

Montreal is the 13th-largest financial centre in the world. Our financial sector is vibrant and represents 150,000 jobs in Quebec. It contributes up to $20 billion to Canada's GDP. Installing a Canada-wide securities regulator in Toronto would inevitably cause a migration of regulatory activities out of Quebec. Quebec's current securities regulator is strong and represents a pool of qualified labour and good jobs, but it is especially vital to the operations of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses.

It is a well-known fact that businesses concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their head offices are located. The Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses estimates that the 578 head offices in Quebec represent 50,000 jobs with a salary that is twice as high as the Quebec average in addition to 20,000 other jobs at specialized service providers such as accounting, legal, financial or computer services.

These head offices could end up in Ontario if the Canada-wide commission is established, and then Quebec will become a subsidiary economy, a branch plant economy, or in other words, a less innovative economy with limited growth. This centralization would make it complicated for businesses to get access to capital.

Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables businesses to access the capital they need to support investment and growth across Quebec.

This potential exodus of head offices would affect all sectors of our economy, not just big business, since Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, unlike foreign companies in Quebec, which tend to rely more on globalized supply chains.

This will have a major, even devastating, impact on our network of SMEs, which is at the heart of our economy and upon which the vitality of our regions depends. The current health crisis has shown how dependence on globalized supply chains can have disastrous consequences that make us dependent on other countries.

The government has the duty to protect SMEs in Quebec and Canada, and the Bloc Québécois will be there to remind it of that. We are very satisfied that we managed to nip this harmful plan to centralize in the bud by removing the controversial clause from Bill C-30. I again urge my colleagues to respect the will of the Standing Committee on Finance and keep the proposed amendment.

In closing, I would like to reassure my fellow Quebeckers who are opposed to this plan that, as long as it has not been officially abandoned, we will continue to fight against this plan, which benefits Ontario to the detriment of Quebec. If the government tries to bring back the clause that was taken out at report stage, we will challenge it. We will strongly oppose it.

Motions in amendment

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. Like so many things with the Liberal government, this omnibus budget is unfocused, leaving many of the most affected by the economic crisis behind.

The budget outlines bold new ideas to build back better with new debt of $354.2 billion last year and $154.7 billion this year. This is a plan where every person in Canada would owe over $13,000, or over $52,000 for a family of four, in new debt in just two years. Not to mention the years of needless deficits leading up to this, which the Conservatives have been warning about since the government took office in 2015. However, I believe Canadians are smart enough to realize that the budget is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Liberals to buy their votes on the backs of their own borrowed money.

It was in this House, when the budget was first tabled, that a Liberal member alluded that this budget has something for everyone. This is not true if someone had just opened a new business. For a year now, the Conservatives have been bringing forth the issue that new businesses, which do not have any sales track record, are not eligible for many programs, and the Liberals have ignored this.

This is an election budget, not a budget focused on economic recovery. It is clear that what the Liberals claim is stimulus is more about their own partisan priorities, rather than about maintaining jobs, creating jobs, helping businesses the most affected by the pandemic, or growing the economy.

Despite billions in new spending, this budget still leaves people and small businesses behind. The budget lists the establishment of a $500-million tourism relief fund as well as $100 million for Destination Canada to market Canada. This amount is a drop in the bucket of a $157.4-billion budget and is an insult to the tourism industry. Tourism was the first affected, and it will be one of the last to recover, yet tourism only garnered one and a half pages in a 750-page omnibus budget document. In my riding, tourism small businesses are a backbone of our community.

Lou is owner of Cheers Okanagan Tours in Kelowna—Lake Country, a tour and shuttle company offering winery tours, ski shuttles, airport transportation and other tour options. They are ambassadors for our local attractions. It has seven vehicles it has had to continue to store and pay for. Lou told me that once her business is back to pre-pandemic levels, it will take three years for her to recover her small business.

Terri, owner of Vacanza Destinations in Kelowna—Lake Country, a boutique travel tourism company, has had no revenue in over a year. She has gone substantially into personal debt. In order to keep her business ready to turn back on, she has to retain all her licensing, liability insurance and many other expenses, costing thousands each month. Terri told me that once business is back to pre-pandemic levels, it will take up to five years for her to recover.

Terri and Lou are two women who have built up their small businesses with hard work. The Liberals say there is money in the budget for people to upgrade their transferable skills in order to work in different industries. Maybe some people, like Terri and Lou, like their jobs, the careers they have built and the relationships they built. It is not up to the Liberals to pick what jobs they like and which ones will survive the pandemic. Tourism is not a priority for the government, nor is it reflected in the budget.

The budget details how arts, entertainment and recreation are the largest affected sector for people losing work in February 2020 compared to 2021, yet there is just slightly over one page out of the 750-page budget referencing these sectors, which are sectors important to Kelowna—Lake Country. The budget outlines approximately $450 million in funding, but much is spread over three years. Musicians, and those involved performing arts, festivals, arts, culture and sports, are some of the hardest hit. This budget is a disappointment.

As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals say there is money in the budget for people to upgrade their transferable skills in order to work in different industries, but why should people not use their talents? Why should they be forced to not work in their field?

I will say it again, it is not up to the Liberals to pick what jobs they like and which ones survive the pandemic. The spending in this budget is unfocused and does not address the hardest hit industries, such as arts, culture and recreation, as priorities.

Aerospace is another major employer in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. The budget states, “In 2019, aerospace contributed more than $28 billion to Canada's GDP, directly and indirectly supporting 234,500 jobs”. The budget also correctly notes, “Highly dependent on purchases from airlines hit hard by the pandemic, the sector is facing reduced demand and a longer path to recovery, relative to other sectors of the economy”.

The government seems to think an appropriate level of support for an industry it states has been hit hard by the pandemic is $250 million over three years across the entire country. Realizing how meagre this truly was, the Minister of Finance tried to spin this underwhelming investment by stating, “This is in addition to the $1.75 billion in the Strategic Innovation Fund”. However, that fund is over seven years. This is another example of an unfocused $154.7-billion omnibus budget.

There are a number of measures in this budget that I could support. However, in the 750-page omnibus budget of debt and election-style spending on the backs of future generations, it is not the real plan that Canada desperately needs. Extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy are both welcome ideas. This, in addition to a number of measures to continue helping individual Canadians and industries, I can absolutely get behind. However, this budget leaves out important sectors that have been the most hurt.

In this budget, the Prime Minister would add more to our national debt than all other previous prime ministers combined. The biggest source of federal funds this last year was not tax revenue or lenders, but central bank money printing. The $303.5 billion of new printed money in 2020 is not free. Devaluing the dollar risks increasing inflation, meaning everyone pays more for things such as housing, food and transportation.

Statistics Canada announced the cost of living went up 3.4% in April 2021 alone. This has been especially apparent in our housing market. Canadians faced a nationwide housing affordability crisis, and the budget completely ignores first-time homebuyers and the housing needs of young Canadians.

On May 26, the finance minister would not answer a simple question of how many units the rapid housing initiative has built. The housing problem is compounded by the recent government announcement of new mortgage qualification rules. Experts are saying this puts home ownership further away for many.

My colleague, the Conservative shadow minister of housing from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, led an opposition day motion yesterday which had many common-sense solutions to address the growing housing and affordability crisis. Instead of embracing these ideas, which have been suggested by experts, the Liberals voted it down, doubling down on their failed strategies.

The budget also fails to meaningfully address the parts of our economy that allow for growth without the need for hands-on government intervention and billions of dollars in borrowed money. Our economic engines of natural resources and trade can create jobs and help pay off our massive debt. Canadian exports are responsible for one in five jobs and nearly a third of our GDP, yet trade is barely sprinkled around the budget.

For the Conservatives, not only does trade represent a guarantee of economic security for millions of workers, but it is also an important aspect of food security and, especially, our best way to combat debt.

The Liberal government is mismanaging the trade file, and the problems keep getting worse.

It is clear that the government has no real plan to secure our future through an economic recovery where all sectors and all regions are firing on all cylinders. I simply cannot support a budget that is unfocused, fails so many who have been the most affected, and burdens future generations with billions of dollars in crippling debt.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to rise in debate, but in particular on the occasion as we approach what I hope is the expeditious adoption of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, which will put in place a number of important measures designed to help continue the fight against COVID-19, ensure that our economy has the strength to bust out of the pandemic recession and create serious economic growth, but also ensure that the growth we expect to see occurs in a way that is both sustainable and inclusive.

Before I begin my assessment of Bill C-30, which I am obviously in support of, having spoken in support of the bill in this House previously, I want to address some of the proceedings that have taken place today.

We have seen, over the course of this pandemic, in some ways some very optimistic co-operation from various opposition parties. I remember back in the early days of the pandemic when it seemed there was a real team Canada spirit to get the supports to workers, businesses and families across Canada that were at severe risk as a result of the changes that COVID-19 foisted upon our communities. It seems, from the proceedings earlier today in the House, that this spirit of co-operation, at least on the part of the Conservative Party of Canada, has evaporated completely.

When we were seeking to move forward with Bill C-30, I was struck by the incredible inconsistency when I saw the Conservatives' House leader host a press conference declaring their appetite to continue to co-operate to get benefits where they are needed. At the same time, one of the Conservative members had moved a motion in the House of Commons to shut down debate for the day on the very bill that is going to extend the benefits they purport to support.

Over the course of the several hours that followed, we saw an adjournment motion seeking to have House members go home before noon rather than get to work to pass these important measures, and we saw speeches given on points of privilege that included texts drawn from the records of Hansard from 1891, which I do not think demanded the attention of the House so much as the emergency benefits that are destined for Canadian families and workers. My sincere hope is that, moving forward, we will be able to rebuild that sense of co-operation in order to get benefits where they are needed.

I will address the three chapters I outlined in my introductory sentences. The first focus of budget 2021 is to continue and finish the fight against COVID-19. That is going to require our focus to be drawn on the issue of vaccines. I am pleased to share that Canada, out of any G20 country, has had more of its citizens receive at least one dose of the vaccine than any other comparator economy in that group. Some people will point to the need to achieve two doses before full vaccination is complete, but from a population health point of view, from a procurement point of view and certainly from a signal that we are going to have a significant portion of our population that is willing to become fully vaccinated, this positions Canada as perhaps the leading economy in the world when it comes to the social responsibility our citizens have exhibited, putting their hands up and saying they want to do their part to help protect their communities, their families and themselves.

Bill C-30 ropes in certain supports that are going to help provincial governments expedite the administration of their vaccines, $1 billion, in fact, for this purpose, but we also know that from a public health point of view, there is more to the fight against COVID-19 than vaccinations. We know that public health care systems have seen serious delays, with appointments being cancelled and surgeries being pushed back months and months. I would hazard a guess that every member of this House has friends or family members who have been impacted by that. That is why this bill includes $4 billion to help address some of the short-term pressures on provincial health care systems that have flowed from this pandemic.

In addition, it is essential we recognize that no epidemiologist in the world was seriously arguing that vaccines alone were going to help us get through the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why we have put roughly $20 billion toward the safe restart agreements, to help provinces make sure that workers could get their hands on personal protective equipment and help businesses erect the kind of infrastructure within their premises that would keep people safe.

There have been various investments in my own community through some of these funds that help protect the mental health of vulnerable members of the community. I am thinking in particular of some of the work that the Antigonish Women's Resource Centre has moved forward with as a result of some of the investments. I am thinking of some of the money that we have put toward facilities like the R.K. MacDonald Nursing Home in Antigonish. I am thinking of some of the facilities in Pictou County, whether it is schools or long-term care facilities, or those on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia that are benefiting from things like improved ventilation.

These are good investments that were made in partnership with provincial governments to help combat some of the consequences that we have seen as a result of COVID-19.

Of course, there is more to the COVID-19 pandemic than a public health threat. This has been the greatest economic challenge we have seen at least since the Great Depression. What I have seen was remarkable. Our institutions have really proven their mettle as we were hit with a virus that had economic consequences that were beyond comprehension a year and a half ago. We have seen Parliament react quickly to help get programs like the Canada emergency wage subsidy to help keep workers on payroll. We have seen the Canada emergency rent subsidy to help businesses literally keep their doors open. We have seen programs like the Canada recovery benefit, which has helped workers keep food on the table.

I am pleased to see that these measures, along with relaxed criteria for employment insurance for affected workers, have been extended in Bill C-30 to provide additional relief for businesses as we transition from the public health emergency to the economic recovery. These benefits are staggered so that, as time goes on, although some of these emergency benefits will diminish, new benefits will come onboard to inspire businesses to hire more workers to help kick-start that recovery in an effective way.

When we talk about the recovery, it is important that we do not simply view it as the need to stabilize existing businesses, which has been one of the top priorities over the past year and a half. We have to look forward to the policies we can adopt that are actually going to kick-start economic growth, because growth is how we are going to help offset some of the immense costs that COVID-19 foisted upon our communities.

When I look at some of the policies that are included in Bill C-30, and indeed in budget 2021, I think of the announcement around Canada's first national child care and early learning strategy. There is over $30 billion dedicated toward this important social and economic policy. Of course, there is a social imperative with the need to level the playing field, particularly for young women who might be starting a family, who are disproportionately affected when they bring a new child into the household.

A policy like this is not just the right thing to do to create that economic equality across Canada. It is also one of the best things we can do to grow our economy, by having more workers who are willing and able to take part in the workforce because they can afford accessible child care. Within five years, it will be at $10 a day, and by next year at half the price it is offered at today. I expect we are going to see a serious boost to our GDP. The forecasts tied to this specific policy are beyond what almost every other policy that is in the playbook globally could offer in terms of the impact it will have on jobs and growth for Canada.

However, this is not a one-trick pony. This budget includes new programs for small business financing. I mentioned the hiring incentive, which will cover half of the increased costs of payroll for businesses that are trying to get out of this pandemic and put people to work who are looking for jobs today. There are major investments in infrastructure, including a renewal of the national trade corridors fund, which has helped advance important projects in my own community, like the twinning of Highway 104 between Pictou County and Antigonish, or the expansion of the Air Cargo Logistics Park at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport. These are important investments. We have more investments in our economic infrastructure through the small craft harbours program, which is going to see an additional $300 million poured into rural communities to help grow the fishery.

It is essential that we do not just focus on growth, but we focus on growth that is equitable, sustainable and inclusive. When I look at some of the investments we made to kick-start the green economic recovery, I look to the additional $5 billion put toward the net-zero accelerator that is included in budget 2021. I look to the recently expanded home energy retrofit program, which would provide up to $5,000 grants for homeowners who conduct a home energy audit, which is going to have the dual benefit of creating jobs in the community and fighting climate change, and of course I should add the tertiary benefit of saving homeowners money. There are benefits here for students, with one of the largest packages globally to support young people in our economy. There are benefits here to expand long-term care facilities so our seniors can retire with dignity.

I will conclude by saying that as we seek to emerge from this pandemic, we cannot forget the people and businesses that continue to hurt and we must extend support to them. We need to adopt these policies that are going to help kick-start our economic growth to punch out of this recession, and we need to ensure that we extend benefits to the vulnerable and benefits that will help kick-start a green economic recovery.

I am thankful for my time. I am so happy to take any questions, and I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this important motion.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you.

Does anybody else have anything to add? Is it Mr. McGowan with the Department of Finance?

I see quite a number of people have their cameras off—Ms. MacLean, Mr. McGowan, Ms. Smith, Mr. Shoom. You're quite free to leave them on. It's not like what we're doing with Bill C-30. Leave your cameras on if you like. You're quite fine either way, but it's better to see us. I see Ms. Smith is all smiles there.

Is there anybody else? Trevor, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Okay, with that, the lineup for the first round of questions is Mr. Kelly, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian.

Mr. Kelly, you have six minutes

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get directly involved in the debate on Government Business Motion No. 8, I just want to take a minute to offer my sincere and personal congratulations to three first nations on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island for having come together to directly take ownership of their traditional territories when it comes to managing the resources. This has been a long journey in my riding, and there have certainly been some high emotions present on the subject of old-growth forestry. It is nice to see the first nations come together and really take ownership of this issue. I just want to offer my congratulations to them for taking this important step on this journey.

I will now turn my attention to the business at hand. As my colleagues in the House know, we are here today debating Government Business Motion No. 8. This motion comes before us under the authority granted under Standing Order 27(1).

The main government motion aims to make sure that the House can extend its sitting hours. The government side would like to see us continue to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays until midnight and have the Friday sitting extended until 4:30 in the afternoon. I believe my Conservative colleagues want to see the motion changed so that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays we would only sit until 8:30 p.m.

I cannot continue to speak about Government Business Motion No. 8 without talking a little about the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which gives me sympathy for Shakespeare’s character Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet when he cried, “A plague o' both your houses!” However, in this case, I think we can substitute the Capulets and the Montagues for the Conservatives and the Liberals. Both of these parties are demonstrating no room for co-operation and no finding of a middle ground in order to move forward important pieces of legislation, which I think many Canadians would like to see us pass.

I will start with my Conservative friends, and because of what happened yesterday and what has already happened this morning in the House, we are not actually going to see a vote on the motion before us until Monday, and so we have lost a lot of very valuable time.

Yesterday, the Conservatives were successful at prolonging the Routine Proceedings of the House by forcing a vote to move to Orders of the Day, which, of course, we as a House rejected, and that then finally allowed the government to actually introduce the motion that is before us. However, this morning, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, then there was a debate on a random committee report, which was then followed by an extended debate on a question of privilege. These parliamentary shenanigans, members can see, are very naked attempts to try to delay, and quite successfully, a vote on the motion before us.

I have been a member of the House since 2015, and experienced members should know that this is a time of year when we usually find the time to come together and usually agree in some straightforward fashion that the House does need some extended sitting hours so that we, as members of Parliament, have the time to represent our constituents and to give voice to important polices and pieces of legislation that concern them. I will never not be in favour of allowing my colleagues to have extra time to do work, which is why I took strong umbrage against the motion to adjourn the House today. It is a Thursday, and unlike a Friday, it is a full sitting day. I think our voters would be shocked to see one party wanting to so blatantly quit the business of the House while there is so much important work to do.

I will leave aside the Conservatives and now turn my eye to the Liberals, because I think it is the height of irony and hypocrisy for the Liberals to stand before us and talk about the dysfunction of the House. When we look at what has been happening in several of the most prominent committees, the Liberals have actively filibustered to prevent those committees from arriving at a point where members can collectively make a decision on a motion that is before them.

I am very lucky to sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I invite my colleagues to substitute on that committee to see what a well-run committee of the House is able to do. We have differing opinion on the agriculture committee, but the one thing that unites us all is the fact that every single one of our parties represents ridings with farmers and has strong agricultural basis. We usually find a way to work together by consensus to arrive at decisions in a respectful way. It does not mean to say that we do not have our debates and our points of disagreement, but it is probably the most ideal demonstration of how committees can work.

The actions of the Liberals at various committee by filibustering are adding to the situation in which we find ourselves. I would have preferred for us to have arrived at a place where we could get a vote on Government Business No. 8, but unfortunately we will have to delay that until Monday because of the special orders we are operating under in this current hybrid system.

Standing Order 27, I believe, dates back to 1982, but even predating that year, it does reflect a long-standing practice that has existed since Confederation for Parliament, and I am sure in the provincial legislatures, to seek the time necessary to advance important legislative agendas.

When we look at why we are where we are today, we also have to identify the fact that the government needs to bear a lot of responsibility for the mismanagement of its own legislative agenda. It has left a lot of very important bills in limbo. We are not very sure if the Liberals will have the runway left for them to arrive at the Governor General's doorstep for the all-important royal assent.

We seem to be operating right now under this sort of manufactured emergency. I use that term because if my colleagues look at the parliamentary calendar, we as a House are scheduled to return on Monday, September 20. Therefore, there really is no reason for this panicked rush to try to get these bills passed or sent to the Senate. We should, under normal circumstances, be planning to have a pleasant summer in our constituencies where we get to engage with our constituents and, hopefully, as the lockdowns lift, attend limited participation in community events. Then as the summer draws to an end, we should look forward to our return to Ottawa, to the House of Commons, on September 20, when we can resume this important business.

The reason we are operating under these circumstances right now, which is quite clear to anyone who has the slightest sense of political know-how and what is quite apparent to many skilled observers, is that the Liberals are very much putting everything into place to call an election. There is no matter of confidence coming up except, of course, the votes on the estimates. There is no motion before the House, no budget, except for Bill C-30, which I believe will pass because we do not want to have an election during this third wave, from which we are recovering. The only plausible reason we would be entering into an election is because the Prime Minister will take it upon himself to visit the Governor General unilaterally and recommend the dissolution of Parliament, as the Liberals seek a new mandate. All signs are pointing toward this.

We should have the time when we return on September 20 to effectively deal with a lot of this. We scheduled a take-note debate next week to give MPs who are not running again the opportunity to give their farewell speeches. The Liberal Party has implemented an emergency order so it can hand-pick preferred candidates instead of letting local riding associations democratically go through the process of selecting their own people. The signs are all there.

When I look at the House schedule for March and April, and the government's completely scattergun approach to how Government Orders were being scheduled at the time, there was really no rhyme, reason or logical pattern to the government bills that came before the House. The Liberals are paying the price for that right now. At the time, they should have identified maybe two or three key priority pieces of legislation and put all their efforts into seeing those across the finish line. Instead, they wasted a lot of time on bills that really were not going anywhere. This is why we see this rush right now.

The Liberals have to realize that this is a minority Parliament. Yes, they are the government, but they were elected to that position with only 33% of the vote in the 2019 election. By virtue of the quirks of our first past the post system, even though the Conservatives got more Canadians to vote for them, the Liberals still ended up with more seats. Therefore, they have to realize that if we are in fact going to have government legislation passed, they have to do so with the consent of another opposition party, and that is a good thing. As an opposition member who sat across the benches from a Liberal majority government, it is good policy and gets more Canadians involved when we have more voices at the table and we try to reach that kind of consensus.

I am proud of how the parties have worked during the worst of the pandemic. If we look back at the history of how we were able to work together in the 2020, I am really proud of the accomplishments that New Democrats were able to provide for Canadians. The major amendments we made to pandemic response programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, increasing the Canadian emergency wage subsidy from the initial 10% to 75%, getting those improvements to programs for students and persons with disabilities, putting pressure on the government to fix the much-maligned commercial rental assistance program and ensuring that it was turned into a subsidy that went directly to the tenants instead of having this complex process that involved landlords, are good accomplishments and really demonstrate how minority parliaments are able to work. Again, we are not scheduled to have an election until the year 2023, so theoretically we could have two more years of this, where more voices are at the table for important legislation.

I would like to turn my attention to some of those important bills that will be well served by the extra time we get as a Parliament to debate. I am very proud of the fact that Bill C-15 has made its way to the other place. I want to take the time to recognize Romeo Saganash who brought in Bill C-262, which served as the precursor to Bill C-15. I am glad to see that important legislation seems to be on its way to becoming one of the statutes of Canada and that we will finally have in place an important legislative framework to ensure that federal laws are brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, there are two bills in particular that have not yet crossed the House of Commons' finish line, and those are Bill C-6 and Bill C-12.

I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6 earlier this week. It is incredibly important legislation. It is a very important use of federal criminal law power. It is high time the House of Commons, indeed the wider Parliament of Canada, made this very significant and important amendment to the Criminal Code to ban this practice. It has been rightly criticized by many professional organizations around the world and we know it has done incredible harm to people who have been forced through it.

It is sad to see members of the Conservative Party trying to hold up this legislation. They are clinging to the belief that the definition of conversion therapy in that bill is not specific enough. Those arguments have been discounted. They have been refuted effectively through debate in the House. I look forward to us having the required number of hours to get Bill C-6 passed so we can get it on its way to the Senate. It is incredibly important for us to get the bill passed into law.

The other bill that we hope will be affected in a positive way by the passage of government Motion No. 8 is Bill C-12. I would agree with some people that Bill C-12 still leaves a lot to be desired, but the important thing to remember is that this is a Liberal government bill and improvements have been made. The amendments made at committee have made it a stronger bill from what was initially on offer at the second reading stage. We need to see that bill brought back to the House. We need to see it passed at third reading and passed on to the Senate.

We are in a critical decade for properly addressing climate change and we need to have those legislative targets put in place. I think of all the years that we have lost since Jack Layton first attempted to pass a bill to put in place those legislative targets. I think about the damage that has been done by climate change since then, about how much further Canada would be ahead if we had taken the steps necessary all those years ago.

We see Bill C-12 as an absolute priority and we want to see it positively impacted by the extension of sitting hours. I want to take the time to acknowledge the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Victoria for their incredible work on the bill, helping to shepherd its way through the committee process and for their sustained engagement with the Minister of Environment in laying out our priorities. I want to take the time to acknowledge that.

With Bill C-6, I would be remiss if I did not mention my hon. colleague and neighbour, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his incredible advocacy on this issue over the years. He has done yeoman's work on the bill during debate, standing and refuting some of the Conservative arguments against it. He deserves special recognition in attaching importance to that bill and in trying to get it through to the finish line.

I want to reiterate that I was elected to come to this place to work. We all knew when we signed up to be members of Parliament, when we were privileged enough to be elected, that this job would sometimes require us to sit extended hours, to work those long hours, to do the work on behalf of our constituents. We certainly have a lot of stuff pulling at our attention these days. It is a careful balancing act between our critic role, our constituency work and what goes on in the House. However, we all know that this is the time of year when we have to roll up our sleeves, get to work, find a way forward to identify the pieces of legislation that are important to us all and work together to get it done.

I appreciate this opportunity to weigh in on Government Business No. 8. I look forward to us having those extended hours next week so we can attach the priority to those bills I spoke about.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his loyalty to the tradition of the Thursday question.

This afternoon we will continue debating the motion to extend sitting hours. After that, we will proceed to the report stage of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021, No. 1, and that debate will continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-6, which deals with conversion therapy. Following that, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will continue debate on Bill C-30.

In closing, I would remind the House that there will be a take-note debate on Tuesday evening so that members not seeking re-election may make a farewell speech, as agreed upon among the parties.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from a member who does not respect the work of Parliament. We are meeting here today to discuss a very important bill, and what did this member and his friends on the other side do? They tried to shut down Parliament.

They said they were finished working for the day and were going home. That is unacceptable. We need to keep Parliament open to debate important bills such as Bill C-6, Bill C-12 and Bill C-30. We have to do that for Canadians.

Finance

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec needs to pay attention to Bill C-30.

The federal government is using it to bring back the Canada-wide securities commission. If that happens, the commission would wipe out Montreal's financial sector to the benefit of Toronto. That is why Quebec has been opposing this commission for 40 years and the Quebec National Assembly has voted four times in favour of motions against this project.

The Bloc Québécois managed to get the funding for the office mandated to create this commission cut from Bill C-30, but the Liberals are doing everything they can to bring it back with an amendment. The vote could be held on Monday.

Will the Liberals respect the unanimous will of Quebec and withdraw their amendment?

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I would note that it is being remedied in a section of Bill C-30, which I know some people are referring to as the John Nater vindication act, but I won't go there.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the question is best answered with two specific examples. If we reflect on what took place last Friday, we were supposed to deal with Bill C-10 at committee stage. A majority of members inside the House wanted to see limitations put on the committee so we would be able to get the bill back to the committee. In my opinion, the games that were played crossed the line. We saw the Chair occupant challenged inappropriately and harassed, I would suggest. There were all sorts of issues that took place on Friday. If I was a Conservative, I would be embarrassed by the behaviour.

With respect to the election, the member is right. We knocked on doors telling seniors age 75 and over that we would bring that 10% increase. This budget bill, Bill C-30, which we want to pass, gives that 10% increase to those age 75 and over. It is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. That is why the Liberals are so passionate about getting our legislative agenda through, because in good part, they are commitments that we made in the last election—

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Fight Against Tax Evasion

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Montarville.

The fight against tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is one of this government's priorities. As we have said from the start, the tax system must be fair, and everyone must pay their fair share of taxes.

With that in mind, I have read the motion tabled by the hon. member with great interest. Unfortunately, it has some flaws, and other initiatives that are already under way would be more effective.

I note that the motion proposes to “review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals...to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside”. It is not quite right to say that corporations currently pay tax based only on where they reside. Current rules also pay attention to where they have their physical operations. However, I think we can all agree that companies, including digital corporations, need to pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn from their activities in Canada, even if remotely controlled. In this area, the government has made clear that it would prefer a multilateral solution.

For that reason, Canada is actively working with our international partners to achieve a global agreement. Progress was made at the recent G7 finance ministers meeting in London. Multinationals need to pay their fair share of taxes, and the G7 has outlined a path to make that possible. We are encouraged by the progress being made at the G7 and the OECD. However, it is important to recognize that a global agreement would take time to be enacted and ratified. Therefore, our government plans to move ahead in the interim.

I encourage all members to take a close look at budget 2021, which proposes to implement a digital services tax at a rate of 3% on revenue from digital services that rely on data and content contributions from Canadian users. The tax would apply to large businesses with gross revenue of 750 million euros or more. It would apply as of January 1, 2022, until an acceptable multilateral approach comes into effect.

In addition, the budget confirms the government's intention to proceed with changes announced in the fall economic statement 2020 pertaining to e-commerce. These measures will ensure that the GST and HST apply to all goods and services consumed in Canada regardless of how they are supplied or who supplies them.

Bill C-30, currently before the House, would implement these changes and ensure that the Canadian sales tax system is fair. Foreign digital corporations supplying digital products or services to consumers in Canada would be required to collect and remit GST/HST. I hope we can count on the member's support to approve Bill C-30.

Motion No. 69 also calls on the government to work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies as a way to more effectively combat tax evasion. Again, I agree with the member opposite that it is necessary to strengthen corporate beneficial ownership transparency. The government is committed to continuing to take action in that regard. Specifically, budget 2021 announced the government's intention to create a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. Authorities need to know who owns which companies in Canada to be able to catch those who attempt to launder money, evade taxes or commit other complex financial crimes.

That said, in Canada, responsibility for corporate law is shared between federal, provincial and territorial governments. Only a small portion of Canadian companies are federally incorporated. Most are registered at the provincial or territorial level. Governments should prioritize these national efforts before working to establish a global registry.

That said, what concerns me most about the motion is that in certain cases, the proposed measures could have negative consequences. Take, for example, the proposal to change the rules concerning income that Canadian corporations repatriate from some of their international subsidiaries.

The motion, it appears, seeks to change the tax rules for what is called “exempt surplus”, the earnings of a foreign subsidiary of a Canadian company from carrying on an active business in a foreign country. These active business earnings can be repatriated to the Canadian company as dividends, free of Canadian income tax, where the foreign subsidiary is resident and carries on business in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty or a tax information exchange agreement.

The proposal would be a major change to Canada's international tax policy. It would not be well targeted and could have negative consequences.

First, the proposal would put Canada out of step with international norms. Canada's tax rules in this regard are consistent with those of most other developed countries.

Second, it could hurt Canadian companies that are foreign subsidiaries operating in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty or a tax information exchange agreement. The current rules ensure that a subsidiary carrying on an active business in one of these countries is subject to similar tax rates as other corporations operating in the same country and therefore competes on an equal footing. Canada has tax treaties and tax information exchange agreements with several countries, including some that have low tax rates. If we change the rules here, we could adversely affect the competitiveness of Canadian businesses operating abroad by increasing their overall tax burden.

Third, at the end of the day, the proposed change may not generate significant revenues, if any at all, for Canada. In some cases, it could simply encourage Canadian companies to keep their foreign profits offshore, and in other cases it could cause them to pay more taxes, but to other countries, not to Canada.

The hon. member would also like to review the concept of permanent establishment, so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada. The goal is laudable, but the motion would not help to achieve it.

For one, the concept of permanent establishment generally has no application in relation to Canadian taxpayers shifting income into foreign shell companies. Rather, it applies in the context of foreign companies operating in Canada. Modifying the concept of permanent establishment would therefore not have the intended effect of taxing in Canada income shifted by Canadian taxpayers into foreign shell companies. Two, this concept cannot be modified unilaterally because the concept is defined in Canada's bilateral tax treaties.

To sum up, Motion No. 69 has the noble objective of fighting tax avoidance and tax evasion. Unfortunately, some parts of it are not properly targeted, which could have a number of negative consequences.

I invite the members of the House to reject the motion. The goals the hon. member is trying to set would be better addressed by other initiatives, including budget 2021 and Bill C-30.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance. It is in relation to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all involved and give a special shout-out to the Library of Parliament analysts, who went the extra mile in providing background information, briefing notes and analysis to all members. As well, I thank the research folks of all parties, who prepare their members with background information and questions from often very different perspectives. Finally, I thank the ministerial staff, who also offer advice from their point of view. It all adds up to better information, better legislation now and ideas for the future.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I meant to raise this at the beginning of the meeting, but I had a substitute, so I didn't. I promise not to take long on this.

There was one clause during the course of our clause-by-clause exercise that I wanted to raise for the potential opportunity to revisit. I'd like to propose a short motion and then just give a one-minute explanation as to what it is. It is a motion that relates to Monsieur Ste-Marie's initial proposed amendment that would have limited the transfer of funding to the Canadian Securities Transition Office to $1. The amendment was defeated, which would have had the effect of ultimately not allowing the organization to operate.

The Conservatives sided against the amendment, as did other parties as well. I did also. Subsequently, on the vote on the main motion, the main motion was defeated, which, in effect, resulted in the same outcome. I don't know. I view those two outcomes to be at odds. I was hoping to propose a motion.

I move that the results of the vote by the committee on clause 158 of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures, be rescinded.

I can boil it down to the Coles Notes. I think this organization is important. It has important impacts on capital markets regulation. It has a major opportunity to work not only with the bank on securities regulation, but also with the major banks to strengthen our anti-money laundering regime in Canada.

Finally, the reason I raise it.... I would have taken everybody's vote at their word, but it was one of the few things, when former Prime Minister Harper was in office, that I was quite in agreement with when it happened. I just wanted to give the opportunity for folks to revisit this issue at committee before we deal with the bill in the House.

I'll leave it there. I could repeat the motion in French if that would be for the benefit of the crowd, if the translation wasn't accurate. I see Monsieur Ste-Marie's shaking his head no, so I'll leave my submission there.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thanks very much.

I'll do my best to be concise. Ms. May and I had a conversation about this issue as well, which I was grateful for.

The issue around this proposed amendment is that it pertains to a section that only deals with the seasonal pilot program, as Ms. May has quite rightly acknowledged. My fear is that it's not entirely innocuous. My understanding is that there would be risk if we create a different definition of the zones in Bill C-30 that refers to the seasonal pilot while the regulations that apply to the ordinary EI zones remain as they are. We could, in an unintended way, actually lead to the perverse consequence where Islanders would not be eligible for the seasonal pilot expansion.

I just have a final point. This is a problem that actually impacts my constituency. I was looking for other ways to address the issue for my own constituents, who sometimes work for the same employer or live in the same community, but have access to different EI benefits. I understand that the commissioner's review of the program is under way. There will be an opportunity in the medium term—I don't have a specific date for you—to actually address the underlying issue through the regulatory change, which I would submit is the proper course of action rather than amending Bill C-30.

I'll leave it to members to decide what they're going to do, but for that reason and with great respect to Ms. May, I'll be voting against the amendment, despite the fact that I want to fix the problem in my own community.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I thank my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz for her courtesy.

Mr. Julian, thank you for your proposed amendments. Indeed, the seniors and groups that came to the committee to testify about Bill C-30 told us that it was unacceptable to create two classes of seniors and that it was discrimination. The president of the FADOQ network, the Quebec golden age federation, reminded us that seniors aged 65 to 74 often have additional expenses. For example, these people, often women, do not have a private pension plan and are caregivers. They have to take care of their spouse, or even their parents or relatives. As a result, they sometimes have to go to the hospital, which results in additional expenses.

The statistics that senior officials have provided clearly demonstrate the importance of not creating two classes of seniors. I fully understand the opportunity for the committee to vote on these motions. Then the government can table a notice of ways and means motion based on that. So I fully support the motions that have been put forward. They are good motions.

However, I would like more clarification on amendment NDP-15. I would like Mr. Julian to explain in more detail what his amendment 15 is actually trying to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting officially to order.

Welcome to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House order of reference of Thursday, May 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25 of this year. Therefore, members are either attending in person in the room, or remotely using the Zoom application.

I sometimes hear those words in my sleep these days. We have repeated them so many times.

I hate to start without Mr. Julian, without one party here, but we will see where we are at first.

(On clauses 269 to 271)

We had started a discussion—and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk—on division 32, an increase to the old age security pension and payment. It was on page 286 of the bill. I believe the lead for the department was Kristen Underwood. There she is.

Welcome, Ms. Underwood.

The floor is open for further discussion on division 32.

Mrs. Jansen.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you and thanking you for all that you have done. The fact that you have been there for so long attests to your sense of ethics, professionalism and collegiality, among other things. Thank you once again, and congratulations for all that you have done.

In response to my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the NDP's opposition motion. This evening, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members' Business, we will have a series of speeches and then proceed to the passage of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, at third reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin with the second reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms, and then, in the afternoon, we will move on to third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.

As for next week, on Monday, we will resume second reading of Bill C-21. Tuesday will be an allotted day. Wednesday, we will proceed with Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. Debate on that bill will continue on Thursday and Friday.

Congratulations once again, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague for her question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. I do have a chair's ruling on this, Mr. Julian, which I think you were expecting.

On Bill C-30, I'll read the one for clause 264 first. The other rulings on the other two amendments are basically the same, only with different acts.

Bill C-30 seeks to amend the Canada Student Loans Act to temporarily suspend interest and interest payments with respect to guaranteed student loans during the period that begins on April 1, 2021, and ends on March 31, 2023. The amendment attempts to suspend interest and interest payments by a borrower for an indeterminate period of time that begins on April 1, 2021, therefore extending the time the government would assume the payment of interest to the lender, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.

That relates to NDP-11.

The same wording, basically, relates to NDP-12, as it deals with the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. It would be the same wording for NDP-13 on clause 266 as it relates to the Apprentice Loans Act.

On all three, I rule them inadmissible based on the need for a royal recommendation, since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.

[Nina Damsbaek]

I'll perhaps just back up momentarily to reiterate why I think it is wise to consider these together. The context at the time of drafting these amendments means we are now at a place in time in which we can narrow it down to exactly how three pieces of these amendments will have the effect of enacting the waiver of interest accrual on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans.

I was indicating that members of this committee may recall that an initial one-year interest-free period was announced in the fall economic statement. Budget 2021 announced an extension on that initial waiver of interest accrual for one year, so these amendments in Bill C-30 were being drafted at the time when Bill C-14 , the act to implement provisions of the economic statement, had not yet received royal assent. In effect, what is now having the effect of implementing a two-year interest-free period is three subclauses of clause 267, which are the coordinating amendments, specifically subclauses 267(2), 267(5) and 267(8), which will modify the new provisions in the three acts governing Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans.

Those new provisions were created by Bill C-14 and will be replaced with the new language that makes the one-year interest-free period a two-year interest-free period, such that no students or apprentices would see interest accrue on their loans starting in April of this year and ending in March 2023.

I will pause there and be happy to take any questions.

[Yannick Mondy, Director, Trade and Tariff Policy, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm the director for tariff and trade policy in the international trade and finance branch at the Department of Finance. Before I go into the intent of division 19 and its clauses, I would ask that Mr. Goran Vragovic be invited to appear as well. Mr. Vragovic is the director general for CBSA assessment and revenue management. He will help to assist on any technical questions relating to the amendments in division 19, part 4, of Bill C-30.

Overall, division 19, part 4, amends the Customs Act to make amendments to help to support the modernization of the payment processes of duties and taxes for commercial importers, primarily by establishing an interest-free period as well as a single harmonized billing cycle for monies owed, as opposed to the current terms of the act right now that set payment, interest and other monies owed on the basis of each transaction. As well, one of the amendments is looking to ensure a fair, consistent valuation of imports, importations of goods in Canada, by introducing a new definition in the Customs Act for the term “sold for export to Canada”.

Clause 210 allows importers to correct an import declaration before a deadline without triggering a redetermination that could generate penalties of interest. It effectively amends subsection 32.2(3) of the Customs Act and allows an importer to make an error correction before a certain deadline that will be set, without it being treated as a redetermination under paragraph 59(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The intention of this provision is to encourage more accurate final accounting and improve payment practices by commercial importers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Ms. Kennedy, if you have the answer. It's not really related to Bill C-30, but we'll let it go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will reconvene. I call to order meeting number 52 of the Standing Committee on Finance.

We're looking at and studying Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19.

We're starting with division 15, the Hibernia dividend backed annuity agreement.

[Eric Malara]

Thank you for your question.

I think that Bill C-25 was covered by Bill C-30. Both are the same, but now we're talking about Bill C-30, rather than Bill C-25.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thanks.

Our analysts flagged that this change is in both Bill C-25 and Bill C-30. Is there a difference between what's contained in those bills, or why is this change apparently in both bills?

[Eric Malara]

Yes, I can talk about the federal gas tax fund, but not necessarily about the other programs.

For the federal gas tax fund, we have agreements with all the signatories, which include the provinces and territories. Once Bill C-30 is passed, the funds will be transferred through the current mechanisms, which call for the immediate distribution of the money.

[Eric Malara]

The program is currently called the federal gas tax fund. However, it will be renamed the Canada community-building fund, pursuant to clause 200 of Bill C-30.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, I wanted to let Mr. Ste-Marie decide whether he wanted to challenge your ruling. However, it's very clear. We just passed another amendment, as you know, that requires the government to address certain aspects of Bill C-30 by preparing a report. Yet amendment BQ-5 proposes to address the requirements in this bill by inviting provincial representatives to a meeting, which is the same thing.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation, but I'll let Mr. Ste-Marie decide whether he wants to challenge your ruling.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for your responses. However, I believe that this raises many concerns.

Bill C-30 seeks to resolve issues. We can see very clearly that the level of protection is being increased. However, I find that a great deal of work must still be done to ensure what I consider a proper level of protection.

I will ask two final questions about the bill.

What about the protection of personal information? How feasible is it to make cryptocurrency subject to the bill?

This concludes my questions.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for your responses. It seems that the bill isn't yet complete, since a great deal of work must still be done, either through regulations or through another bill.

Does Bill C-30, as it stands, provide any guarantee to an end-user who conducts a transaction through a fintech company that they won't be held liable in any way for an unauthorized electronic funds transfer?

I have two more questions for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will officially call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the House order of reference of Thursday, May 27 of this year, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25. Therefore members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

With that, we will get right to it.

I should mention to committee members first, maybe, that the biweekly reports that the committee called for in early April should be in their inboxes now. That's just for their information.

We will start. We finished clause 170.

(On clause 171)

To bring us up to date, we're on division 7, Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. I believe Erin O'Brien is here again. She'll be on deck on this one. As director general of the financial services division, she'll be the lead on divisions 7, 8 and 9.

Are there any questions on that, or any explanations?

Go ahead, Ms. O'Brien.

Small Business

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As all members of the House know, the federal government has been there from the start of the pandemic. The priority has always been to support our small businesses and workers. We know that SMEs continue to have difficulty making ends meet because of the pandemic. To date, close to 900,000 businesses have been supported by the Canada emergency business account, and almost 550,000 have already received the $20,000 expansion.

However, I understand the concerns of my colleague opposite. Financial institutions will be reaching out directly to businesses that have not yet received the expansions that they applied for. We will be providing clarifying information through our banks.

We know that small businesses continue to face problems, as the member indicated, but I am nevertheless very pleased to learn from my colleague that certain problems have already been resolved.

I have heard my colleague opposite, and let me say on the record that I also have entrepreneurs and small business owners in my riding who are waiting for this clarifying information.

I am very pleased to hear from my Conservative colleague that a few of the entrepreneurs in his riding have managed to resolve the situation. He mentioned that for one, there was a problem in the application, a mistake perhaps in the address or postal code of the business, and now that the problem has been resolved, they have received the additional $20,000 in financing. It came, as everyone will remember, in the fall with the second wave in order to provide a top-up to entrepreneurs using the important CEBA program.

The banks will be contacting entrepreneurs for this small glitch in the CEBA application process when there is an issue with the application. However, I remind the House that there are numerous other programs that our federal government put into place to support small businesses.

For example, over a year ago, we put in place the regional relief and recovery fund, which has been of invaluable assistance to small businesses. Thus far, we are talking about 141,000 jobs across Canada supported by this particular program. Over 23,000 businesses have been supported by the regional relief and recovery fund.

Let me also mention the rent subsidy program and lockdown support, which have been providing subsidies for commercial rents across the country. Over 180,000 organizations have been supported by that subsidy.

Of course, there is also the emergency wage subsidy, which has been central to our government's response to COVID-19. The wage subsidy continues to help employers of all sizes in all industries affected by the pandemic.

As many people across Canada and particularly in the House know, Bill C-30, which is our budget implementation act currently before the House, proposes to extend the rent and wage subsidies to continue to support entrepreneurs. I hope that all members of the House will support Bill C-30, as it does provide critical support to our entrepreneurs.

In conclusion, our government will continue to ensure that Canada's economy emerges from this pandemic stronger, more inclusive and more resilient than ever before.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

In the meantime, I'd like to point out that in Bill C-30—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall clause 170 carry on division?

(Clause 170 agreed to on division)

We are going to have to end it there. We are in a bit of a bind on Bill C-30 and everything that it represents. In any event, that's Parliament.

There are no meeting times that we can scrounge up for tomorrow. Part of this is how Parliament works now with Zoom, and committees are backed up. There are only so many rooms and so many people to assist with translation. It is what it is.

There's nothing available on Friday and there's absolutely nothing on Monday. We have our regular time slot on Tuesday, and we will attempt to get more time. I would suggest to people to ask their whips to see if we can get more time so that we can get this bill back to the House floor.

That's for people's information at the moment.

To all the witnesses who are in the waiting room and to the officials who came and answered questions, some of them for a very long time, I want to give our thanks on behalf of all the committee for your efforts tonight. That's on behalf of every member here.

Pat, you have your hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

While we're waiting for Mr. Brown, I would remind committee members that we have an absolute hard stop at 9:30 Ottawa time, 10:30 my time. We cannot go beyond that, due to translation services. Obviously, we're going to have to find another time to deal with Bill C-30. I don't know when that will be.

We'll go to division 6, clause 159, and Mr. Brown.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I will try. I don't have all the notes in front of me. After all, it is a pretty complex financial issue.

This project, which was voted on a long time ago and has been dragging on, will shut down all the financial centres, in Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal, for example, and centralize everything in Toronto at the request of the big Bay Street banks. It would make Canada more centralized and less like a federation. Decisions on stock exchange securities are now made in Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal, which talk each other and have a passport system for interprovincial trade that works very well. They would be centralized in Toronto.

Quebec's economic model is at stake and is being destroyed. This is the only part of Bill C‑30 for which I am requesting a recorded vote, because if you vote against my amendment and for this portion of the bill, you will be voting against Quebec.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Division 5 of Part 4 of the bill is entitled “Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act”.

In Greater Montreal, Quebec, there is consensus among the securities regulators, which bring together the financial market regulators. It is that companies with head offices are very important to our economic model. When you add up all the jobs in the finance sector overseen by the Autorité des marchés financiers, you get a total of about 100,000 good jobs in Greater Montreal.

This part of the bill seeks to reinforce the transition to a single office. We know full well that this concept will become marginalized if everything is centralized in Toronto and they are allowed to continue to operate as they wish in Montreal. I would like to remind committee members that Canada is a federation. Not all powers have to be centralized in Ottawa. The same is true for financial powers, which do not have to be centralized in Toronto.

Centralizing Canada's securities regulatory regime in Toronto is a gift to Bay Street. No one gains by it, even in interprovincial trade. The passport system works well.

Bill C‑30 suggests that up to $119.5 million be allocated to this matter. Through this amendment, we propose to restore the value it should have, which is $1.

I remind you that the parties in Quebec's National Assembly are unanimous; they do not want this centralization, because it will be profoundly detrimental to Quebec's economic model and to the maintenance of corporate head offices. If you vote against this amendment and for the proposed centralization, you are voting against Quebec, where everyone agrees on it.

Before I close, I want to remind you of a very important piece of information. After two periods, the Canadiens are leading 3 to 1. Anything is still possible, and we can be optimistic. We wish the Canadiens all the best and we wish Quebec all the best.

I sincerely ask that you vote for my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I would like to advise you immediately that I will be calling for a recorded vote on the amendment and on this portion of the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We shall reconvene meeting number 51 of the finance committee. We are studying Bill C-30 clause by clause.

We were at clause 107 and had a discussion on that. Are there any further questions?

Ed, your hand is up. Go ahead.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I am very pleased to hear those explanations, because, if memory serves, that is not what I understood during the briefing sessions, when I asked questions specifically on this topic.

Mr. McGowan, if you confirm that Bill C‑30, as currently drafted, gives the Minister the power to keep the rate of the wage subsidy higher for industries that are having problems, such as tourism, restaurants, hotels, and maritime tourism, for example, I can certainly withdraw my amendment.

I would like that confirmation from you.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We know that Bill C‑30 provides for a gradual decrease in the percentage of the wage subsidy. We also know that the Minister has the power to make regulations to change the percentage and to maintain it at a higher level if necessary. A number of the witnesses who came to the committee to testify on Bill C‑30 told us that it is really important for their industry and their economic sector to keep the percentage of the subsidy up.

Amendment BQ‑3 gives the Minister the power to increase the rate, not for the economy as a whole, but for certain sectors of the economy that she could identify, including the particularly vulnerable ones, where a decrease in the rates in the fall would have catastrophic consequences. It would allow the Minister to be able to target those sectors and increase the percentage of the wage subsidy to correspond to the one currently in effect.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I just want to put on the record, because I think it's important to say for those who are listening, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-30 currently does provide the authority to extend the wage subsidy program through regulations until November 20, 2021, should the economic and public health situation require it. I don't want anybody to think that November 2021 is the only period. There is an ability under this current bill that we're considering, through regulations, to be able to continue to extend the wage and rent subsidies to November 20. I just wanted to make sure we stated that on the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Fast, for pointing me out.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I gather that we will go through this a number of times, so I'll take a few moments to basically map out what I intend to do, Mr. Chair.

With full respect for your position, of course, the reality is, as we've seen in finance committees in the past, that the Liberal government has the ability to provide and accept amendments to a budget. We certainly saw that with the famous Jack Layton budget of 2005, when royal recommendations and ways and means were done retroactively. In other words, the government—because at that point it was on the verge of being defeated in the House of Commons—decided to accept opposition amendments, so the reality is that these types of initiatives and these types of amendments are very much in order if the government accepts them. Your ruling is very much intended to say that the government is not in favour of these particular amendments.

That being said, and citing precedents, I do have the opportunity to challenge you—diplomatically, and with respect, Mr. Chair. I don't intend to do that for each amendment, particularly because you are giving me the opportunity to explain the amendments at the beginning, but I will, at certain points during the course of the examination of Bill C-30, be challenging your ruling. I'll leave it up to the majority of the committee to decide what they intend to do with that.

If, of course, a majority of the committee overrules your decision, we then have the ability to debate and adopt that amendment and ultimately to put pressure on the government to actually accept that amendment in a minority Parliament. We have seen in past minority Parliaments that the government has chosen to accept those amendments.

While this particular ruling I do object to on the basis that the government should be actually looking to keep its commitments around the stock option deduction, I won't be challenging the chair's ruling at this point and will reserve the time later on at certain moments to challenge the ruling.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for indulging me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 51 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the House order of reference of today, Thursday, May 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, and therefore members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available by the House of Commons website.

Today we reach the stage of dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-30 after hearing from quite a number of witnesses.

You will see on the notice of meeting that there are many officials from across quite a section of departments and agencies who are available to address questions of members as we make our way through this bill, so keep that in mind, members, if you have any questions. We also have the legislative clerk here.

I want to recognize and thank officials for their previous appearances before this committee and for being here today.

Before I turn to clause-by-clause study, members, I believe you have received a copy of a request for a project budget. If we could, we will deal with that first. It should be in your file somewhere.

Pat, you look puzzled. The project budget is for the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. The amount requested is for the cost of the hearings, which are pretty nearly complete. The amount requested is $9,750.

Does anyone want to move approval?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Like many people, she is concerned about returning to a balanced budget. However, there are some in our society who are not paying their fair share. I am thinking of all those companies and people who send their money to tax havens.

Bill C-30 has some specific measures to deal with tax avoidance. The government is presenting them as a major effort to counter tax avoidance but, in reality, these measures are just highly specific, minor tweaks related to ongoing cases. What are the member's thoughts on the fight against tax havens?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021, No. 1.

The Liberals claim this budget is focused on finishing the fight against COVID, healing the economic wounds left by the COVID recession and creating more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come. However, it does not do any of that and does absolutely nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians.

The Liberal government has mentioned that a consequence of COVID has been women leaving the workforce. This is true. COVID forced businesses, small and large, to suddenly shut down. At the status of women committee, we heard from witnesses that women left the workforce for several different reasons. Some left not by choice but because they worked in industries such as retail, travel and hospitality, which were hit the hardest. Others left because of the additional responsibilities of having to become teachers to their kids and caretakers to family members, while for others working from home was just not an option. As well, the committee heard from these witnesses that while many men have returned to the workforce, women have not returned at the same rate.

The government came to the conclusion that the reason for this was a lack of child care spaces and the need for a universal child care package. Again, the committee heard evidence from witnesses that this was not the case. As a matter of fact, we heard that child care centres were closing because there was a lack of children to fill the spaces. Additionally, a universal child care plan is a simple answer to a very complex problem. Under the Liberal plan, all children would be treated exactly the same and day care centres would be identical from coast to coast to coast. It does not take into consideration parental choice and that parents, not the government, are in the best position to make decisions about what is best for their kids.

The Liberal budget also has not taken into account the cultural sensitivities that exist in such a vast and diverse country as Canada. For example, I am of an ethnic background where we strongly believe in the importance not just of ensuring our children get a good education, but of preserving and teaching our culture, language and religion. Canadians do not need a generic program where they drop their kids off and then pick them up at the end of the day. Instead, they need support in their choice of child care, whether that be a day care centre, grandparents or friends who teach their culture, language and values to their children. I have heard from many that, when their children were younger, their grandmas and grandpas would watch them throughout the day. That is where the children learned to do fractions, and that four quarter cups equal one cup, while spending quality time baking delicious cookies and bread their parents enjoyed when they picked their kids up at the end of the day. This is something that is extremely important to my constituents, and this Liberal budget does not achieve that.

The Liberal government's budget also discusses COVID recovery programs, including the wage subsidy and rent relief programs. These programs were necessary at the beginning of the pandemic. The Conservatives fully supported the programs, and even made recommendations and changes to the programs to improve them and ensure no Canadians fell through the cracks. While there were always challenges, and we heard from our constituents about how these programs needed to be improved, I know my constituents were grateful that all parties put their partisanship aside to provide emergency support. However, these programs have made a reappearance in this budget as they are being extended. While most of the country is grappling with an intense third wave of COVID-19, and provinces are once again instituting some of the harshest lockdown policies we have seen thus far, this is all because of the current Prime Minister's failure to protect Canadians.

These programs are only being extended because the Prime Minister failed to take the appropriate actions at the start of the pandemic. Examples include closing our borders to all international travellers, supplying the provinces with rapid testing and securing enough vaccine deliveries in large enough quantities to provide a successful vaccine rollout.

Instead, because of the government's incompetence, many of our frontline workers, many of whom reside in my riding, have only been given their first shot and have been told they have to wait months before they can get their second shot.

Finally, I want to highlight in the budget the focus on gender-based violence in Canada. Since the government was elected, it has constantly talked about gender-based violence and how it negatively impacts women and girls in Canada. On average, one in three women and girls in Canada will face some sort of violence in their lifetime. That is 6,373,325 women and girls.

Each time the Minister for Women and Gender Equality has appeared before the Status of Women committee, I have asked her repeatedly when Canadian women and girls can finally see the government's national action plan to address gender-based violence. What is the answer? The minister always replies by acknowledging this is an important issue that the government wants to address, yet there comes a point when words no longer mean anything if they are not followed through with action.

Every single one of our allies who signed the international agreement that gender-based violence is a serious issue, a pandemic that needs to be addressed, at the same time as Canada did, has already published at least one national action plan. In some cases, they are already working on versions two and three. We cannot even get our first version out. This is why I was pleased to see in the budget the government's plan to address this very serious issue. However, I was completely disappointed that, after years of campaigning and promising from the Prime Minister, the government has only now decided to appoint a secretariat to develop this plan.

There were 161 women murdered last year solely because they were women and just last week in Quebec, they had their 11th woman murdered, a victim of femicide, since February of this year. This is why I have been meeting with stakeholders across this country and working with my Conservative colleagues on how we can effectively and quickly address this ever-growing crime and end violence toward women.

Conservatives have put forward solutions to better monitor individuals with a history of domestic violence and to address sexual exploitation of minors. Conservatives have advocated for giving women the ability to find out if their intimate partner has a history of violence. Canadians cannot afford more empty promises and recommendations that fall on deaf ears, not when the lives of our daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers are at stake.

Canada's Conservatives were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal that would secure jobs and the economy. However, the Prime Minister's budget is a massive letdown for Canadians who were looking for a plan to create jobs and boost economic growth. Conservatives have put forward a real viable plan to help get our economy going again.

Canada's recovery plan is focused on creating financial security and certainty. This plan will safely secure our future and deliver a Canada where those who have struggled the most through this pandemic can get back to work. This plan will ensure that manufacturing at home is bolstered, where wages go up and where the dream of affording a better life for their children can be realized by all Canadians.

Canada's Conservatives got Canada through the last recession and with Canada's recovery plan, we will get Canadians through this one too.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the previous Conservative administration, real wage rates increased more than the rate of inflation. We heard just recently that the annualized CPI increase is now 3.4%.

Could my hon. colleague comment on what Bill C-30, and all of the spending that is embedded in it, will do to the inflation rate, and hence to the relationship of inflation to real wages?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first acknowledge that I am joining members from Treaty 5 territory, the traditional territory of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, from my home community of Thompson, Manitoba.

Today, I join members to speak on behalf of our region on Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

I speak today at a difficult time for our country and especially for my province of Manitoba. COVID is spreading faster here in Manitoba than in any other province in Canada. In fact, right now, it is the worst in all of North America. I want to share my thoughts and condolences with the many people and families who have lost loved ones to COVID-19 during this crisis. I also want to acknowledge the life-saving work of the people working on the front lines right now.

However, to be clear, it should not have had to be this way, and this did not just happen. This past year of the pandemic has proven how the system is broken. The neo-liberal agenda has proven not only dangerous but deadly for many: our elderly, our indigenous communities and our workers.

Indigenous communities, including those here in Manitoba, have faced some of the highest rates of infection of COVID-19. At least six first nations in our region received full support from the Canadian Armed Forces when they called for urgent help to be able to save lives in their communities. I want to acknowledge the leadership of first nation leaders across our region, who have done everything in their power, along with advocates and people on the front lines, to keep their community safe.

We have seen strict lockdowns. We have seen the need to take incredible measures to keep people in some of the most vulnerable communities in the country safe. We have heard time and time again, and I have certainly heard that they were doing this in the face of significant odds, which were completely avoidable. These odds were the result of decades of colonized policies, paternalistic policies and of systemic racism.

At the same time that communities were fighting a pandemic, they were also fighting a third world crisis of no running water, a third world crisis of inadequate housing and a third world crisis of not enough medical personnel, let alone doctors and nurses, in their communities. So many communities across our region, so many first nations, went above and beyond to keep their people safe.

Just yesterday we heard from the Auditor General that first nations across Canada did not have the personal protective equipment needed going into this pandemic to be safe, which is particularly the case in our region. We know that throughout this they have struggled in any way they could to access PPE.

I remember advocating on behalf of those in Sagkeeng. When they received the first test kits, they were very clear in their questioning of how could they do tests when they did not have access to personal protective equipment to administer the COVID-19 tests. This was early in the pandemic. This federal government has let first nations down time and time again, and we saw this explicitly during this pandemic.

I want to acknowledge the incredible leadership of communities and regional indigenous leaders here in Manitoba in fighting to get vaccines available to first nations, indigenous and northern communities on a priority basis. I was proud to work with indigenous and northern leaders, and colleagues in the NDP, to push the federal government to act on this front.

I am pleased to acknowledge that there was recognition and a response from the federal government early this year that first nations, and people living on reserve and across the north in particular, required priority access to the vaccine, but it is not enough. We continue to see, especially these days here in Manitoba, indigenous people be disproportionally impacted by COVID-19.

I am sad to say that Bill C-30, a bill that was developed during this crisis, does not deal with some of the fundamental challenges that first nations communities face. We know that one of the key contributors to the spread of COVID-19 on reserve is the lack of housing, particularly the existence of overcrowded, inadequate, mould-infested homes.

I remember the leadership of Cross Lake talking about, of course, that there would be a significant spread when there were 15, 17 or 20 people living in a home. The leadership in Shamattawa made clear that the spread back in December was as significant as it was because of the overcrowded housing that people in that community live in.

This is not new. This is something for which leaders and people across the region have been fighting for a long time. Bill C-30, unfortunately, does nothing to address the housing shortage in first nations and northern communities across the region.

I also want to acknowledge that the second and third waves of COVID-19 have hit working people especially hard: front-line workers, workers in long-term care, in meat-packing plants, in warehouses, taxi drivers, migrant workers, many of them racialized and many of them immigrant. In Manitoba, people of Southeast Asian descent are most disproportionately affected by COVID-19 at this time. They are impacted 13 times the rate that white people are.

Working people have been forced to work throughout this pandemic without personal protective equipment, without paid sick leave, without targeted shutdowns and without access to vaccines. They have been forced to work by employers, corporations and governments that have chosen to prioritize profits ahead of the lives of working people and their families. Women workers have also lost significant ground. Inequality and the lack of structural supports like child care holding us all back.

I want to acknowledge that while Bill C-30 has made a historic commitment to child care, it is not as a result of the benevolence of the Liberal government. This is the result of decades of women fighting for universal child care across our country. I am proud of the work the NDP has done to push this vision forward. Yes, it is time to see a historic investment in child care, especially as a result of what we have seen in this crisis, where women have had to leave work and have taken a hit financially and economically in terms of their stability because of the lack of child care in our country. Let us get moving on turning that commitment to child care into action.

However, let us be clear that Bill C-30 does not go far enough for working people. There is no commitment on paid sick days. We know that a critical factor in keeping people and workers safe is the ability to stay home and get well.

We also know that the government has not gone far enough in changes to EI. While there are some in Bill C-30, it does not go far enough to ensure that workers are supported, especially in this day and age when the nature of work has changed significantly and the rise of precarious work is a significant challenge for so many.

The reality is that we cannot afford the status quo. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven that. If we want different results, we need to make different choices. We need to tax the rich and ensure that those who have made an extraordinary profit on the backs of working people pay their fair share. We need to go after pandemic profiteers who have made money hand over fist during a time when so many are suffering and many have lost their lives.

We need to go further and push for supports for those pushed to the margins. We need to cancel student debt, recognizing that many students right now are paying for an education that will leave them significantly in debt and are heading into a job market that is pretty abysmal. We need Canada to take a stand for students. We need to go further than that and ensure that we are committing to free education for students across our country.

We need to take on one of the biggest challenges of our time, the climate crisis, recognizing that without climate justice, we cannot achieve justice for all. We need to move in that direction as soon as possible.

The bottom line is that we need a transformative vision for our world, one that seeks to prioritize the well-being of people and our planet over profits, a vision rooted in the power of the collective, a vision that believes we can achieve the social, environmental and economic justice that we all deserve.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

Every time the Conservatives rise to speak, they tell us that the Liberals are spending recklessly but that the Conservatives have a plan and can quote figures for everything, regardless of what we are talking about. However, over the past few days, and especially since the start of the debate on Bill C-30, I have been asking the Conservatives to give us a number with respect to health transfers.

The Conservatives are always saying that the Liberals do not manage the public purse responsibly, which is true. However, when it came time to put a number on the only request Quebec made for this budget, only the Premier of Quebec and the premiers of the other provinces could do so. They estimated the increase in health transfers at $28 billion, because they want to see these transfers rise from 22% to 35%.

Is there a Conservative in the House who will tell me whether their party agrees with the number the provinces came up with?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House to talk about the budget implementation bill. Talking about the bill, however, means backing up a bit and talking about the budget itself.

Members will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget on April 26, which came as no surprise because that is what the Bloc Québécois said it would do. We said we would not support the budget unless it contained two key measures.

First, the Bloc Québécois wanted the budget to increase old age security, or OAS, for people 65 and up, not just for those 75 and up, which is what the government is doing.

Moreover, the government's OAS bump for those 75 and up is happening next year, not this year. The government announced that, in the meantime, it is going to give seniors 75 and over a one-time $500 payment this August. When the budget came out, it made no sense to create two classes of seniors because financial insecurity does not begin at 75. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.

As my colleague from Shefford pointed out yesterday in the House, creating two classes of seniors is bound to cause a reaction, and that is exactly what is happening: FADOQ, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the National Association of Federal Retirees have all condemned this move.

The Bloc Québécois's other condition for supporting the budget was a stable and ongoing increase in health care transfers. Not only are all provincial premiers who sit on the Council of the Federation calling for this, but it was also the will of the House, since the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed on December 2, 2020, that said the following:

That the House:

...call on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers before the end of 2020 in order to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public.

The government missed a great opportunity to heed the repeated calls from the Bloc Québécois, as well as the community and the other levels of government, on the need to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. Neither the budget nor Bill C-30 provides for such an increase.

What is more, it looks as though there was enough fiscal space to allow for such a measure, since the deficit that the government had announced and the actual deficit we see in the budget differ by about $28 billion. Ironically, that is the exact amount Quebec and the provinces are asking for to increase health transfers.

The Bloc Québécois voted against the budget given the absence of these two key measures that we would have liked to see included. However, that does not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C-30 because the measures included in the budget, although insufficient, must be implemented.

Bill C-30 also includes important measures that we would like to see applied. I will name two of them, taking the time to explain the improvements we would have liked to see.

I like the measure concerning the tourism industry. We know that the 2021 budget proposes to establish a $500 million tourism relief fund administered by the regional development agencies. The fund could help support local tourism businesses in adapting their products and services to public health measures. We also hope that it will help the entire tourism industry recover from the pandemic.

I am thrilled to see that certain measures will be extended, in particular the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS, and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, or CERS, since this also indirectly helps the tourism industry. However, I am disappointed at the absence of certain specific measures for particular sectors of the tourism industry.

Once again, I will try to hammer it home: I would have liked to see something specific in the budget for sugar shacks, which, I repeat, suffered two years of total loss, since their season is only a few weeks long. Unlike other businesses, they were unable to make up for losses during the rest of the year when there were lulls in the pandemic. I would also have liked to see the addition of fixed costs for sugar shacks in the subsidy. Unlike traditional restaurants, sugar shacks do not replenish their stores based on the number of clients coming in. They stock up several months before the beginning of the season. As a result, in 2020, sugar shacks lost everything they had procured by the end of 2019 for a normal season.

A bill as colossal as omnibus Bill C-30 also includes a number of very precise and very specific items. Sometimes that allows us, as members of Parliament, to take a nostalgic trip back to before we were parliamentarians.

In my case, I was a family lawyer, and that is why I wanted to talk about family allowance, since Bill C-30 proposes an amendment to the regime. The bill allows parents with unequal shared custody, for example on a 65-35 basis, to share the Canada child benefit.

As a lawyer, I have seen otherwise successful negotiations fall apart just because of the benefit when a decision should have been made in the best interests of the child. The amendment proposed in Bill C-30 makes it possible to reframe discussions based on this principle and stop getting hung up on the benefit.

Since I am talking about the benefit, I will raise a few aspects of its administration that could have been modified. The first one was pointed out to me by a constituent who noticed a particularly archaic assumption in the law. Last September, this person received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency that said that, according to the Income Tax Act, when a child lives with a man and a woman who are either married or de facto spouses, the woman is assumed to be the person responsible for the care and education of all children living in the house.

In this case, my constituent is a father who shares custody of his children with his ex-spouse and who lives with a new spouse. In the eyes of the law, his new spouse is assumed to be the primary caregiver for all of the children who live in the house. Although, as my constituent pointed out, his spouse is an extraordinary stepmother, the children are his. He found it surprising that his spouse was obliged, under the law, to write a letter to the CRA to confirm that the benefit was to be paid to the children's father rather than her.

In the words of my constituent, he thought the letter had come from 1955. He requested an amendment to the act that would better reflect our modern society and the sharing of parental responsibility, which, ideally, would be equal.

Another problem with the Canada child benefit was brought to my attention by a constituent whose child died a few years ago but who is still fighting a long battle for other parents who are currently in the same situation she was at the time. Some children with severe disabilities or at the end of their life live in specialized centres, like the Marie Enfant rehabilitation centre, so that they can receive care.

The problem is that the parent loses the child benefit, as is also the case when a child is placed in a youth centre, even temporarily.

As my constituent mentioned, when a child is placed in a facility like the Centre de réadaptation Marie Enfant, the parent does not necessarily have fewer expenses, and may have even more. In her case, since she visited her child every day, she had to pay extra travel and parking expenses. She had to change her work schedule and adjust accordingly. Today, many parents find themselves in the same situation. I am talking about this today in the hope that we can eventually resolve the situation. All the better if the debate on Bill C-30 allowed me to plant those seeds of hope.

There are many other things I could say about Bill C-30, but I will stop here. I will be pleased to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I speak to Bill C-30, I want to begin with the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the new Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister, in his mandate letter, instructed the new minister to avoid creating new permanent spending. In other words, he instructed her to not create any additional structural debt, yet the flagship of this budget is a national day care program that does just that.

When the Minister of Finance finally presented the budget, she indicated that the government's national day care program was going to save the day. It was to be the key element in restoring our economy post-COVID by giving every mother the child care they needed at an affordable rate to enable them to return to or get real, paying jobs. The impression made was that every woman's innate desire to be engaged in the workforce, coupled with the national day care program, would enable, empower and enlighten the female portion of our population to do their part to create a healthier GDP for Canada.

It deeply troubles me when the minister for the status of women stands in the House and expresses her dismay that women still carry the burden of raising children in our society. In question period, the previous minister of immigration indicated that we needed to increase our immigration numbers because we have an aging demographic. When evidence suggests that perhaps we could encourage Canadians to have more children, the immigration minister's response was to pause and say that we have an aging demographic.

On May 18, the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario stated that the Liberals' child care plan would result in uncertainty, limited access, the loss of jobs and the closure of many small businesses owned by women. The association also indicated that the Prime Minister knows that this Ottawa-knows-best government approach to child care takes away choice and would ensure that only publicly funded operators would survive, leaving behind small businesses, women and families.

Choice in child care is a high priority for many mothers and fathers, including the option of having family or friends care for their children, or participating in a co-operative. That is an excellent option in my hometown, where many people work at the potash mine and appreciate giving oversight to the care their children receive while they are at work. Under the current government's plan, there is no room for choice. It appears all working parents would be required to use a national government-run child care system as their only option to qualify for federal child care funding while participating in the workforce. Canada's Conservatives believe parents, not the government, know what is best for their children, and parents should have the choice in determining who will care for their children within their communities.

Once COVID no longer fills our news channels 24-7, and families unlearn all the apprehension, confusion and ever-changing recommendations and get back to normal life by working, playing, going to school and, yes, arranging child care, the Liberals' plan would add even more adversity and struggle for Canada's mothers, their children and women entrepreneurs. Why would that be? The Liberals' plan to kick-start our economy with a national day care program assumes partnership in their plan by the provinces. The finance minister claims the funding for the program would become a 50-50 arrangement with the provinces by 2025-2026, with a federal minimum commitment of $9.2 billion per year in ongoing investments in child care, including indigenous early learning and child care. To support this vision, budget 2021 proposes new investments totalling up to $30 billion over the next five years, or approximately $5 billion per year, and $8.3 billion going forward for early learning and child care and indigenous early learning and child care.

The PBO was quick to note that the provinces are at their limit right now and have no capability to buy into such a program. They do not have access to a printing press. Many of their economies were suffering extensively before COVID due to the same Liberal government creating such economic uncertainty that international and domestic investments were already packing up and leaving. A warning, from our national defence, of an ensuing pandemic was ignored. In a matter of weeks, families were thrown into complete chaos as employment declined, schools closed and child care that was previously available became very limited. The question is this: How feasible is the Liberal government's plan, based on its financial commitment as outlined in the 2021 budget?

Cardus is a highly respected independent think tank located here in Ottawa that has spent over 20 years studying the institutions, communities, beliefs, leaders and intricacies of civil society that collectively compose the social architecture of our common life. Its research focuses on education, family, health, religious freedom, social cities, work in economics and spirited citizenship.

In response to the announcement of a national day care initiative, Cardus recently released a report entitled, “Look Before You Leap: The Real Costs and Complexities of National Daycare”. The report studies the actual cost of providing the national day care system proposed by the government by comparing the policies advocated by proponents with the costs of delivering those policies.

The government claims that, by the end of the five-year time frame offered on child care in this budget, it would be contributing half of the child care costs for the provinces and territories, which would administer the programs. Cardus, on the other hand, finds the real annual and ongoing costs of national day care to be $36.3 billion. Since federal costs are fixed at $8.3 billion ongoing, this means that the provinces would need to cover the federal funding shortfall. Here are a few examples. The cost to Alberta would be $3.5 billion annually, to Manitoba $984 million, to Ontario $9.5 billion and to New Brunswick $336 million annually.

In her testimony to the finance committee, Andrea Mrozek, senior fellow of the Cardus family, commented that every morning she works taking care of her two-year-old and every afternoon she works for Cardus. She stated:

The federal government thinks that only one of these activities is worthy of federal support....[For] those whose primary concern is increasing GDP, only the waged work contributes, but child care is the care of a child, no matter who does it, and for the majority [of parents] there is little to gain and much to lose from plans for national day care.

Andrea has researched child care for 15 years and co-authored the report I mentioned previously. She went on to say:

Our detailed cost assessment phases in spaces for 70% of children under six, over five years, and includes staff, capital, training and maintenance costs. All of our assumptions are based on the work of advocates for national day care; however, there are several things they would desire that we were not able to include, making our estimates low.

Our low-quality and low-cost estimate rings in at $17 billion annually. The more reasonable estimate rings in at $36.3 billion annually.

She highlighted three concerns. Her first point was that the funding levels are woefully inadequate for a high-quality, universal program. This level of funding guarantees only low-quality care, inaccessible care or both. This program would not deliver what it promises.

Her second point was that because it funds only licensed not-for-profit care, most parents would experience a loss of care options, increased child care costs or both.

She then spoke to the per-family funding amounts that could be provided, and noted that this was money allocated to children, instead of to spaces. If the allocated federal funding of $9.2 billion annually was given to parents instead of to spaces, it would truly help with the difficulty of the high cost of child care. The per-child annual amount for children under six would be almost $4,000 annually. If the real costs of national day care were given to parents for each child under six, the per-child amount would be nearly $14,000 annually. She entered her testimony and stated that:

...with the idea that a family’s unpaid time with their child or children is not work, not valuable, or offers no “return.” I think this is a short-sighted, technocratic approach to child care that fails to address Canadian families’ wishes and needs. There are fortunately better and more equitable and more efficient ways to meet those needs, and simultaneously respect Canadian diversity.

I appreciate and support early childhood education and day care programs for those who want them and for those who are vulnerable. Single and low-income parents who need or want to work deserve to have quality day care spaces designed and available specifically for them, if that is the child care they choose. However, it is also true that for one parent, or a combination of both parents, raising their children during their early childhood years is a high calling and deserves recognition as a significant investment in our economy. Stay-at-home parents who choose to earn less during those youngest formative years, and parents who work from home or choose to work part time while taking care of their children, are investing directly in our most valuable and important resource: the next generation of Canadians. The first five years of a child's life is a crucial time for teaching personal beliefs, values and a sense of worth within the family unit, which is a foundational building block of a healthy society.

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Finance—Main Estimates, 2021-22

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Chair, it is an absolute pleasure for me to participate in this committee of the whole debate and speak this evening to budget 2021. I will be focusing most of my remarks on how our budget has a number of measures to help small businesses and, in turn, how this is good for our recovery and economic growth moving forward. Among many things in budget 2021, there is a plan to make investments in Canada's businesses so they can hire and train workers, who will, as a result, have more money to spend, spurring our recovery and growing an economy with more opportunities for everyone.

Let us start at the beginning. An essential part of Canada's fight against COVID-19 has been the unprecedented federal support for Canadians and Canadian businesses. This support has helped millions of families in the depths of this crisis. One in four Canadians was receiving federal COVID income support. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, currently set to expire in June 2021, has helped more than 5.3 million Canadians keep their jobs and has provided more than $79 billion in support to the Canadian economy.

To continue to support Canadians through the rest of this crisis, and to give workers and employers certainty and stability over the coming months, Bill C-30, the budget implementation act that is currently before the House, proposes to extent the wage subsidy until September 25, 2021. It also proposes to gradually decrease the subsidy rate, beginning on July 4, 2021, to ensure an orderly phase-out of the program as vaccinations are received and as the economy reopens. Extending the support will mean that millions of jobs will continue to be protected.

The wage subsidy has been an absolute lifeline for so many businesses in my riding of Davenport, from many of the artistic and cultural organizations, such as the House of Anansi, an iconic Canadian publishing house, to businesses such as Teixeira Accounting Firm, one of the many small businesses that serve the local community.

Another key support for our small businesses has been the Canada emergency rent subsidy and the lockdown top-up support that has helped more than 180,000 organizations pay their rent, mortgage interest and other expenses. The rent subsidy provides eligible organizations with direct and easy-to-access rental support. An important aspect of this support is that it is accessible directly to tenants and landlords. This program is also scheduled to end in June 2021, but to help Canadians weather the remainder of this crisis until the recovery, they need continued support. As in the case of the wage subsidy, budget 2021 proposes to extend the subsidy for the rent and the lockdown supports until September 25, 2021. It also proposes to gradually reduce the rate of the subsidy for the rent to ensure the program's orderly phase-out as vaccines continue to be rolled out and the economy reopens.

Again, these emergency supports have been tremendous lifelines to many businesses in my riding of Davenport, from hair salons to small theatres to many of the restaurants across my riding, among many other types of organizations and businesses. There is no way they could have survived without these supports. I know they are so grateful for this ongoing support, although I will say they are so excited at the prospect of opening up sometime soon.

Let us move on to speak to supports contained in Bill C-30 that would assist small businesses succeed moving forward. They are some of the new programs we are proposing.

To provide further support to our small businesses, Bill C-30 proposes the new Canada recovery hiring program for eligible employers who continue to experience qualifying declines in revenues, relative to before the pandemic, and who need help with restarting. This proposed program would provide an alternate support for businesses affected by the pandemic to help them hire more workers as the economy reopens. The proposed program is designed so that the rates for both the wage subsidy and the hiring program will slowly decrease over time, creating a strong incentive for employers to begin hiring as soon as possible to maximize their benefit.

For businesses that have been hardest hit by the pandemic, hiring the workers they need to grow is a cost they may worry about taking on. The government wants these businesses to recover and grow by hiring more people, so that workers are at the forefront of our recovery. The proposed Canada recovery hiring benefit would offset a portion of the extra costs employers take on as they reopen, either by increasing wages or hours worked or by hiring more staff. This support would only be available for active employees and would be offered from June 6 to November 20, 2021. The aim is to make it as easy as possible for businesses to hire new workers as the economy reopens.

It is obvious that Canadian businesses must adopt new technologies and go digital to meet the needs of their customers and remain competitive. The pandemic has precipitated the digital transformation of the economy as businesses, workers and consumers increasingly do business online. To spur recovery, jobs and growth, the federal government is launching Canada's digital adoption program, which will create thousands of jobs for young Canadians in addition to helping up to 160,000 small and medium-sized businesses adopt new digital technologies.

This program will offer two components of support to businesses. Eligible shopping street businesses will receive micro grants to help offset the costs of the digital switchover and gain digital trainer support from a network of 20,000 well-trained young Canadians. Some companies will need more comprehensive support to adopt these new technologies. A second component will therefore be offered to businesses located outside the shopping streets, such as small food manufacturing and processing businesses. Support provided to these companies will focus on expert technology planning consultants and the financial options required to implement these technologies. These measures will match more businesses with customers seeking what they have to offer and ensure their continued success.

One of the inspirations for this new program is the digital main street, a program providing grants and services to Ontario businesses to help them digitize. Our federal government helped fund an expansion of this program in June of last year, which helped countless businesses in my riding adapt to the pandemic by going online.

The chair of Little Portugal on Dundas BIA went before the finance committee last week. In the chair's opening remarks to the committee, she let us know that the BIA had been at the forefront of adoption of the digital main street program and it was helped, in large part, by having a Portuguese speaker on its digital service squad. They have indicated the importance of making our new digital adoption program accessible to main street businesses, some of whom may be slow to adopt new technologies, including language barriers, but they have stressed how vital this program is in helping businesses recover from the pandemic and adapt for the future, improving their chances of long-term sustainable success.

Finally, I want to speak in the final minutes of my remarks this evening on budget 2021 about investments in immigration. As we know, Canada is the destination of global talent. With our declining birth rate and increasing retirement rate, Canada's future economic success depends on good immigration policy moving forward and a modern, efficient immigration system to meet the needs of incoming applicants and new Canadians.

As part of budget 2021, the government is proposing $428 million to develop and deliver an enterprise-wide digital platform that will replace the current legacy case management system. What this means is that Canada's immigration system will see an improved application process and support for applicants. We understand that this type of investment is needed to ensure immigration levels in Canada remain well supported.

When Stephen Poloz, former governor of the Bank of Canada, testified recently before the finance committee, he made a very important point. He said that immigration was Canada's most important economic growth engine, just as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, anything we can do to make that process more efficient will be a good investment in Canada's future growth. It is important we recognize that the money we put into our immigration system is an investment, not a cost. It will pay huge dividends in economic growth for the future.

Budget 2021 invests in a more prosperous future for us all as we move past and come out of this pandemic. We are meeting this challenge head on and we are laser-focused on growth and the economy.

A sustainable recovery program must focus on the challenges and opportunities ahead in the coming years and decades. It must be guided by a growth strategy based on the unique competitive advantages of the Canadian economy and ensure that Canada is positioned to address the needs of the century to come.

I now have a couple of questions for the Associate Minister of Finance, and my first question is on mental health.

For over a year, Canadians have been forced to adapt their lives to a new normal to keep their communities safe. Many students have switched to attending classes online, and everyone misses having in-person interactions with their loved ones, peers and colleagues. Last year, 40% of all Canadians, and 60% of Canadians with pre-existing mental health conditions, reported that their mental health had worsened. Many of my constituents have shared how these changes and finance-related stress have caused them to feel severe burnout and fatigue due to the stress of this global pandemic.

We realize that this pandemic has taken a great toll on the mental health of Canadians, and that is why the government launched the Wellness Together Canada portal last April. This portal supports the mental health of Canadians by providing live support, treatment and reliable information on mental health and well-being.

Can the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance speak to the measures that will be implemented through budget 2021 to support Canadians who are struggling with their mental health?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the Bloc Québécois member for that important question.

I agree with her that extending EI sickness benefits from 15 to 25 weeks is one of the most important measures in the budget. That is one of the big things Bill C-30 will do. It will be life-changing for many Canadians. Fifteen weeks of sickness benefits is not enough; 26 weeks is much more.

We talked about the disadvantaged, the poor and the employment insurance system. I want to stress the importance of the Canada workers benefit. This measure will help Canadians who are working but are still poor. It will lift 100,000 working Canadians out of poverty.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for her question.

Our government is grateful for the contribution that seniors made and continue to make in our communities. We have taken measures to fight poverty, including among seniors. I am very proud to assure members that our policies are yielding positive results.

Today, 25% fewer seniors are living in poverty than when we took office in 2015. That result is directly linked to the good work done by our government, particularly in restoring OAS eligibility to 65 years and increasing support to the most vulnerable single seniors.

Bill C-30 also proposes to increase old age security by 10% for people aged 75 and older, which will help lift a large number of seniors out of poverty.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the member for her question.

I completely agree that this is an economic and health crisis. That is why the federal government was there to support the provinces and territories on health care and will continue to be.

With Bill C-10, we hope to provide an additional $4 billion for health care, to help the provinces and territories deal with the immediate pressure on their health care systems, in particular to help them clear health care system backlogs caused by the pandemic. We know that this assistance is urgent, and that is why I hope all members will support Bill C-30.

Furthermore, the bill would provide $1 billion for the vaccine rollout. I hope that all members will agree that the provinces need this money. They need this assistance.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, if the member thinks it is important to support the provincial and territorial health care systems, then he must support our Bill C-30, which includes $4 billion for the health care systems of the provinces and territories.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, Bill C-30 and the budget contain a huge amount of support for all Canadian small businesses. I will start with the digital adoption program, which is going to be a huge productivity boost. There is also talk about the tax incentive—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, what I will commit to is an important measure in Bill C-30 and I hope the member opposite will support. This measure applies to publicly listed corporations that received the wage subsidy for any qualifying period after June 5. These corporations would be required to pay the amount by which the remuneration of their top executives in 2021 exceeded their remuneration in 2019 up to the amount of wage subsidy received for active employees for this period. That is an important measure and I look forward to support from the other side of the House for it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, my second round of questions is about asymmetry in client and consumer protection.

We know that, in the case of an unauthorized use of electronic funds transfer, such as a credit card, a debit care, a prepaid payment product such as a prepaid card, or even an online or virtual payment, a bank client's maximum liability under subsection 627.33(1) of the Bank Act and section 5 of the Canadian Code of Practice for Consumer Debit Card Services is $50.

Aside from the requirement to notify, which is also in the bill before us, this requirement is more detailed and rigorous in other acts and regulations, such as the Bank Act. There are also other protective mechanisms, such as the grace period for the minimum payment on a credit card balance, the prohibition of overlimit fees and assurance that prepaid products will not expire, to name just a few here.

Another consideration is the bank's obligation to behave responsibly. These standards are laid out for bank clients in the Bank Act but not in Bill C-30.

Although the level of protection for the end user has not yet been determined, can the minister confirm at this point that a user doing business with a fintech company, not a bank, will not be held liable for the unauthorized use of an electronic funds transfer?

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

Madam Chair, since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, we have done everything necessary to protect the lives and the livelihoods of Canadians, to help our businesses weather the storm and to position Canada for a robust, resilient and sustainable recovery.

As certain regions in Canada start to reopen, we must remember that we are not done fighting the virus. Our determination to win this fight and provide Canadians the support they need is stronger than ever.

This year's budget, which I tabled on April 19 and which Bill C-30 would enact, meets the three fundamental challenges facing Canadians right now.

First, we must defeat COVID. That means buying vaccines and supporting provincial and territorial health care systems. It means enforcing quarantine rules and it means providing Canadians and Canadian businesses with the help they need to get through lockdowns and to fully recover when COVID is defeated. COVID will be defeated. Vaccines are available to Canadians in ever-growing quantities, and they are working. More than 60% of adult Canadians have received their first dose of the vaccine. Canadians are doing their part and getting vaccinated. My thanks go to team Canada. Together we can do this.

Second, we must punch our way out of this COVID recession. That means making sure that hard-hit businesses can rebound, start growing and start hiring again. It also means helping the people who have been the hardest hit by this recession: women, young people, racialized Canadians, low-wage workers and small businesses. We are doing just that. When fully enacted, this budget will create nearly 500,000 new training and work opportunities for Canadians.

Our third major challenge is to create long-term economic growth and to build a more resilient Canada, a country that is better, more fair, more prosperous and more innovative. That is why we intend to invest ambitiously in the green transition and the new jobs that come with it, in digital transformation and innovation, and in infrastructure like housing, transit and the trade corridors that we need as a dynamic, growing country.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on our health care systems. That is why, in Bill C-30, we propose to provide $4 billion through the Canada health transfer to help the provinces and territories ease the immediate pressure on their health care systems.

Additional funds for health care will help pay for the many different procedures that had to be delayed because of the pandemic. This will help build the resilience of our health care systems. That is what Canadians deserve and need.

A full recovery from COVID requires a new, long-term investment in social infrastructure. That means providing early learning and child care, student grants and income top-ups, so that the middle class can flourish and more Canadians can join the middle class. We know that without child care, parents, usually mothers, cannot work outside the home. That is more painfully clear now than ever. We intend to invest $30 billion over five years, reaching $9.2 billion annually, to provide high-quality, affordable and accessible early learning and child care across Canada. Our goal is an average cost of $10 a day across the country within five years.

In making this commitment, I thank Quebec's feminists, who have led the way for the rest of Canada. I am very grateful to them.

To minimize economic scarring and to power a robust recovery, we must bridge Canadian businesses through to the end of this crisis. The wage subsidy, rent subsidy and lockdown support had been set to expire next month. This budget extends these measures through to September 25, 2021.

In order to help those who still cannot work, we will maintain flexible access to employment insurance for another year, until fall 2022. Furthermore, to support Canadians who are not covered by employment insurance, the Canada recovery benefit will be extended by 12 weeks.

We are also proposing a four-week extension of the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, which would bring it to a maximum of 42 weeks at $500 a week. Similarly, the employment insurance sickness benefit period will be increased from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. These measures provide tangible and measurable assistance to the people who need help now.

As we build a resilient recovery, it is critically important that we help low-wage workers. They work harder than anyone else, for lower pay. They work on the front lines, and COVID has revealed to us all that the work they do is truly essential. We intend to expand the Canada workers benefit, extending income top-ups to about one million more workers and lifting nearly 100,000 Canadians out of poverty. We also propose to introduce a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage.

Young Canadians must be at the heart of our recovery, not just to help them bounce back from the COVID recession, but because their future success is critical to our success as a country. We intend to make college and university more accessible and affordable. We will create job openings in skilled trades and high tech, and we will double the Canada student grant for two more years, while extending the waiver of interest on federal student and apprentice loans to March 2023. This will mean lower costs for the approximately 1.5 million Canadians who are working to repay their student loans. Our budget will also make an important change so that nobody earning $40,000 per year or less will need to make payments on student loans, and the cap on monthly student loan payments will be reduced from 20% of household income to 10%.

We all know that no one has been hit harder by this health crisis over the past 14 months than seniors. The truth is that many seniors were relying on monthly benefits to make ends meet even before the pandemic.

We are therefore proposing a one-time payment of $500 in August 2021 for old age security pensioners who will be 75 or older in June 2022.

Furthermore, this budget provides for an additional 10% increase in old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and over, as of July 2021. This will increase the benefits that some 3.3 million seniors are receiving and comes at a time when many are living longer and depleting their savings.

Small businesses have been hit very hard during COVID. We must create the conditions for them to recover and start growing again. This budget offers the Canada recovery hiring program to support business hiring. We will also invest up to $4 billion to help up to 160,000 small and medium-sized businesses buy and adopt the technologies they need.

In closing, allow me to directly address the opposition. Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, is the first major step in delivering jobs, growth and recovery. Vaccines are here, and Canadians want to get back to work. It is time for all of us to get back to work in the House as well.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021.

As always, I rise to represent the good citizens of the North Okanagan—Shuswap. They have been doing their part during this pandemic, but have seen this government let them down.

In previous budget debates and examining the Liberal deficits in the range of $18 billion to $20 billion, I had stated how these deficits created a public debt amounting to about $500 for every living Canadian. That is $500 for every person in Canada, whether they have the means to repay it or not. For the fewer than 50% of Canadians who are in the workforce and able to repay debt, their share was exponentially more than $500 per person on average.

Throughout this pandemic crisis, I have supported emergency spending, which was necessary to help individuals and small businesses get through the layoffs and business shutdowns caused by the restrictions required to prevent the spread of the virus. Members from all parties, and indeed all Canadians, have invested varying levels of trust in this government to spend where necessary to protect Canadians, to end the pandemic and to help Canadians and employers who required assistance along the way. In more than one way, Canadians had no choice but to trust this government to spend money and deliver a pandemic response.

How has this government treated the trust of those who depend on it? Well, scandals have emerged and proven the self-evident truths that this government has reportedly failed to focus and deliver the investments required to secure the future of all Canadians. Crisis spending was and is clearly still required, but without a plan, spending without controls never delivers the outcomes that are needed.

One outcome of the government's spending that we can all bank on is the additional $343 billion in national debt that the government has already added, which works out to $9,270 for every Canadian, whether they are able to repay it or not. That means, once again, that those in the workforce who are potentially able to pay down debt have been handed another tax bill of $20,000 each by this government. What is worse is that the government still has no clear plan for getting Canadians back to work to start paying down the debt of the 2016 to 2020 deficits, and now this new added debt.

I have reviewed the budget and searched for the priorities identified to me by the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap; the priorities that I have consistently relayed to this government on behalf of my constituents. Unfortunately, in budget 2021, this government has failed to recognize some vitally important needs.

Affordability is something weighing on the minds of many Canadians and, once again, this government has failed to recognize the reality in this budget. Seniors on fixed incomes see the cost of groceries and everyday living growing faster than their pensions. With no way of increasing their incomes, seniors are already worried that the future increases in taxes to pay for this government's spending will leave them with fewer dollars for daily living.

Young families see the cost of their first home growing faster than their income, and they need a plan to make home ownership more affordable. As the inflation rate has hit 3.4%, the highest level in a decade, these young families can only fault this Liberal government, with its policies of flippantly printing and spending money, for their inability to keep up with rising costs.

On infrastructure, over the years I have advocated on behalf of municipalities and first nations in need of infrastructure programs to help grow their communities and secure the future of their residents and members. The one-time investment of $2.2 billion to address infrastructure priorities in municipalities and first nations communities through the federal gas tax fund is not the long-term commitment the communities are looking for. When major infrastructure projects often take years to implement, a one-time injection is somewhat like the Prime Minister's promise of a one-shot summer. There is no plan to follow through.

On investments in aquatic invasive species, AIS, I have heard from numerous conservation organizations, municipalities, first nations and regional districts that are all justly concerned about the persistent threat of aquatic invasive species to wildlife, ecologies and economies in the North Okanagan—Shuswap.

In 2019, the Prime Minister directed the fisheries minister to make new investments in the fight against invasive species. Nearly a year and a half later, British Columbians are still waiting for the government to finally provide some new resources to protect our waters from invasive species.

Having served with the fisheries minister for years on the fisheries committee, the minister knows that the introduction of Zebra and Quagga mussels to B.C. waters would devastate our ecosystem and local economies, yet she persists in withholding the new investment the Prime Minister mandated her to make.

More needs to be done and Canadians deserve better. Throughout the pandemic, I have heard from hundreds of constituents doing their best to contend with the challenges they face. One common thread that I see in the input and requests I have received is that Canadians need a plan to help them secure their future, a long-term national recovery plan. Canadians want a plan that will secure their jobs. Businesses have been contacting me saying they are unable to fill shifts because of disincentives for people to go back to work.

That is why the Conservatives put forward a back-to-work bonus plan to help Canadians transition back to work, while gradually reducing the need for government benefits. Canadians want a plan that will secure accountability. Constituents have contacted me tired of the breaches of ethics by the Prime Minister, his cabinet and caucus. That is why Conservatives adopted the policy put forward by one of my constituents to strengthen legislation around accountability and transparency.

Constituents want a plan that will secure mental health. We all know someone who has been impacted by mental illness and been unable to access the support they need. Canadians need a plan that recognizes mental health is health.

Canadians also want a plan that will secure the country. Early in the pandemic, we learned that Canada was not prepared and that stockpiles of PPE had been shipped to China by the government. Canadians need a plan that ensures we are prepared for the next threat to our security, whatever threat that may be.

Canadians want a plan that will secure our economy, rather than borrowing and printing more money and driving up inflation. Canadians need a plan that provides stimulus measures that are targeted and time limited to avoid creating a structural deficit.

These are the differences between the Liberal government's budget and the implementation act, and our Conservative plan to secure our future.

When I hear of seniors' drop-in organizations that have been forced to close because they spent their last dollars paying utility bills and got no help from the government to remain solvent so they could be there when restrictions are lifted again, I see a government that has failed its citizens. When I hear from businesses that could be growing except they cannot find workers to fill shifts, I see a government that has failed. When I hear from first nations, municipalities and community organizations that the government is not providing the protective measures mandated by the minister, I see a government that has failed.

Canadians deserve better and I look forward to working with the good people of the North Okanagan—Shuswap in our pursuit of the plans and resources needed to secure the future and the future of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the crux of my speech was waiving interest on apprenticeship loans due to COVID. For those paying interest on apprenticeship loans, the interest would be waived for a certain period of time. While I commend that, if people are not working, having the interest deferred while not getting jobs means they are still in the same trouble. I do not see anything in the budget or the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, which we are discussing today, that would get Canada building things again or get our natural resource development kick-started.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech by addressing some of the things that we heard from the Green Party member just before this. He was talking about stranded assets. The eastern part of Canada could be significantly stranded if Line 5 gets shut down, and that is the reality.

He was talking about oil and gas being a sunset industry. That may be true, but that sunset is not likely to happen until several hundred years from now. We are still seeing an increase in demand for oil production around the world. Even if one believes all the projections, that increase in demand, not a reduction in demand, will continue for the next 30 years at a minimum.

What better place to get those hydrocarbons from than Canada? We have some of the most ethically produced oil on the face of the planet, with some of the lowest-carbon-intensity oil, right here in Canada. Never mind the fact that we are importing hydrocarbons from around the world to continue to supply Canada. That alone seems to be ridiculous, in my opinion. We are an energy-rich country. We have endless amounts of natural resources in this country, yet we rely on other countries to supply our energy.

In the case of Line 5, we are relying on another country to keep the licensing going for that particular pipeline. As far as I know, right now that pipeline is operating illegally. The most recent Line 5 news is that the easement through the State of Michigan has been revoked, but the pipeline continues to operate. We are hanging in limbo as we go forward.

I am speaking to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. It has been fascinating to listen to all of the discussion around this particular budget. We hear repeatedly from folks about the subsidization of the oil and gas industry. I was just discussing with one of the Bloc members how the government subsidizes oil and gas, but does not subsidize the forestry industry. I have not seen any direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry, with the exception of buying a pipeline.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was being built by private industry. Due to the actions of the government, the pipeline was no longer to be built. The government subsequently bought that project. If that is what the Bloc member meant by subsidizing oil and gas, I get it. I do not think we need to be publicly funding pipelines either. Pipelines have been built successfully in this country for generations by private industry, and I would assume that would continue.

The Bloc member was commenting about the forestry industry in Quebec. In Northern Alberta, the forestry industry is a big contributor to jobs and the economy. Oil and gas are a shiny spot in our economy, but Alberta's economy is diversified. Where I come from, we do the three Fs: forestry, farming and fracking. Those are the big job creators in my area, and they are basically what support all of the population in the area. I am always interested in the challenges we see.

One aspect of this budget implementation act is the removal of interest on the apprenticeship loans that have been given out. I think that is a noble cause. I am the product of one of the apprenticeship programs in Alberta. I was one of the first to go through the rapid apprenticeship program when it was introduced back in 2003. I got my automotive ticket from Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The apprenticeship programs we have developed in Alberta are world-renowned and recognized. There is also the good work of NAIT, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. I went through there in classes full of apprentices.

Many of my friends have been apprentices. I got my journeyman's ticket back in 2007, so I know about the life of an apprentice. The beauty of apprenticeship programs is that people typically get to work while they are getting their training. Believe me, all of the apprentices I know are tradesmen. They are proud of what they do. They work with their hands. They would all very much appreciate having jobs right now, rather than having the interest on their loans waived. While I appreciate that in this particular bill, I do not see a lot in this bill that will get these people back to work.

I call Line 5 the magic pipeline because it has changed the Liberal rhetoric on pipelines dramatically. The Liberals are now starting to sound like Conservatives: Pipelines are the safest way to move petroleum products. If we did not have this pipeline there would be 8,000 rail cars and 15,000 tanker trucks on the road.

There is one way to get all of these apprentices back to work, and that is to start building some of the pipeline projects that had been proposed and were ready to be built back in 2015. One, in particular, runs parallel to Line 5 and is called energy east. That pipeline was ready to be built back in 2015 when I was first elected. The Liberals kiboshed that project, but we do not see anything. We do not see a repeal of Bill C-69: the “no more pipelines” bill. That would have been something they could have put in the budget to promote the development of our natural resources, promote jobs and promote private industry spending its own capital to get folks back to work and get us back to the lifestyle we were used to before COVID.

This seems like a prime opportunity to get us all back to work. It would ensure that we would have apprentices across the country making paycheques and being able to pay the interest on their student loans by going back to work. They could be raising their families, making money and doing all of the things that they do. I do not see a lot of those kinds of initiatives in this particular bill.

One thing that I saw in the budget was around the home renovation tax credit. I was hopeful we would get some details on it in this bill, but they are not evident. It was an initiative that the Conservatives undertook during the last great recession. We rapidly passed the home renovation tax credit, which allowed people to update their windows, insulation and other kinds of things. It could also be thought of as a green initiative. It was in the budget. We were talking about a particular $5,000 tax credit on a $40,000 loan. We do not see details of that in this particular bill, so I am disappointed about that.

Lastly, I want to talk a little about equalization. This bill touches on equalization, and on what is called the federal-provincial transfer act. One of the things that Albertans have been requesting for a number of years is the removal of the cap on that financial stabilization program. It is currently capped at $60. The Liberals have moved that cap to $166. That is a movement in the right direction, but there still is no logic as to why there is a cap on the equalization stabilization program.

Why is there a cap? If a province is suffering under duress and having less revenue than it had in the past, the stabilization program is there to maintain funding for programs while we go through a dip in revenue. Nobody can explain the logic for why there is a cap on that. We see that the government has acknowledged that maybe the cap is too low and it is going to raise the cap to $166, but the Liberals do not provide us with any logic whatsoever as to why there needs to be a cap on that program. If government revenues in a particular province are suffering in a major depression, the stabilization program is supposed to balance that out and ease the pain of that. Why would it have a cap on it? There has been no logic whatsoever provided for that. I am also quite frustrated by that.

I see that my time is up. I am always grateful to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was thinking today about how I should approach the budget implementation bill.

I have a particular fondness for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I like it when he says we are trying to pick a fight. I was wondering how to interpret that, and I was reminded of a name my father used to call me when I was a teenager.

My father was the king of neologisms. He was a guy who could invent concepts and words. When I was young, he would tell me that I was “contrarious”. I do not know if that came from the word “contrary” or “contrarian”, but he told me that “contrarious” means someone who scratches their backside when their head is itchy. That is just his turn of phrase. I do not mean to be offensive. That, according to my father, is what it means to be “contrarious”. I think that someone who is “contrarious” is someone who goes against what makes sense. It is true that in my teenage years, I frequently did things that did not make sense and defied my father out of stubbornness.

Now when I hear this government telling us that we are trying to pick a fight, I often think that they are using the same contrarian rhetoric. I am not saying that the government has an itchy head and is scratching the wrong spot. That is not what I am saying. I am simply saying that perhaps some of the government's actions are counterproductive.

In my view, there are four aspects of Bill C-30 that clearly demonstrate that the government's actions are counterproductive.

The first aspect is old age security. My office has never received as many complaints as it has about the government's proposal to give $500 to people aged 75 and over.

While my father used to use the analogy that our heads are itchy but we are scratching our backsides, I would say that seniors are fired up, and that is the truth. I have never received so many complaints, both online and by email. This is unfair. It creates two classes of seniors. We have made our position clear, but we did not even need to, since that is how it looks on the ground.

The seniors receiving the payment are unhappy. Seniors aged 75 and over who have a spouse under 75 who will not be receiving it are unhappy, and they are vocal about it. Some of the emails I received even got quite abusive, blaming me as if it had been my decision. I am getting this type of criticism. It is understandable in the context of the pandemic that there are tensions and people who are unhappy. As we know, seniors were the ones who were overlooked during the pandemic.

The Bloc Québécois made a proposal, masterfully presented by the member for Shefford, that I think was rational and reasonable. Why not increase old age security by $110 a month and increase the guaranteed income supplement by $70 for a couple and $50 for a single person? To me, this is a desirable and reasonable position.

I said earlier that the government is acting unreasonably. In my opinion, it is not picking a fight to say that. I am saying that, having listened to the people on the ground, the seniors in my riding, I believe that a desirable and reasonable position would be to increase old age security by $110 and the guaranteed income supplement by $50 or by $70 for a couple.

Health transfers are another aspect of Bill C-30 that I find unreasonable. To me, this perfectly encapsulates what is not working in federalism. I clearly remember two instances of what we call Canadian-style neo-liberalism that took place in the Canadian federation after the 1995 referendum, in 1996-97 and 1997-98. The government cut transfer payments by $2 billion each fiscal year. It totally dismantled Quebec's health system.

There was a report, the Séguin report, which was issued not by a sovereignist, but by a federalist. This report demonstrated what we call the fiscal imbalance. No one ever came out and said that it was conjured up and contrived by the interests of people who had a different political opinion from the sovereignists. No one ever came out and said that, but I think it is a proven fact.

Then there was a slightly better agreement on health transfers with the Conservatives, thanks to a bit of a push from our party, it must be said.

Then, under the Harper government, we were back to meagre health care funding. Year after year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if nothing changed with respect to health transfers, provincial deficits would grow while the federal government ended up swimming in surpluses. That is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not me. It is in the 2013 report.

What is in Bill C-30? Certainly not the 35% the provinces want. The government is signalling that transfers will come with strings attached. That is what we saw for senior care. That seems to be the government's intention. I think this indicates something unreasonable that nobody wants to see.

Another fairly important aspect of Bill C-30 that made me raise my eyebrows when I read it is the extension of various programs, such as the wage subsidy. My thought was that, if the government were interested in fixing a mistake, it could simply change the wage subsidy to make it off-limits to political parties, but there is nothing about that in Bill C-30.

It is no secret that we will likely be in campaign mode soon. Some political parties will be campaigning using money from the wage subsidy. We are still waiting for our Conservative friends to pay back this money. They at least admitted that it may not have been ethical and may not have been the right thing to do. The Liberal Party and our colleagues in the NDP, however, seem quite comfortable with their decision to claim the wage subsidy.

The government could propose a worthwhile amendment to fix that. At the very least, an amendment would send the message that members of the House of Commons do not create programs that benefit them personally. That is all I will say.

The infamous green recovery is another thing that I think is unreasonable and counterproductive. I will never understand what the government is trying to do with this green recovery. There is virtually no mention of it in Bill C-30.

The only information have we gotten about the green recovery so far is an announcement about the electrification of transportation.

Allow me to back up a little. I am sure this figure is shocking, but the government is talking about a $17.6-billion investment in the green recovery.

Do members know how much the Trans Mountain pipeline cost? It cost $17.1 billion, and that was just one project. Overall, the pipeline costs as much as the green recovery.

That is an image that really hits home, for anyone who is serious about the environment. When it comes to the green recovery, what we have been hearing about is the electrification of transportation. That bothers me a bit because Ontario is going to make off with most of the money associated with that, yet it is the only province that is no longer offering a rebate for purchasing an electric vehicle. That is ironic, but let us leave that aside.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the government announced its intention to get into hydrogen production. There are three types of hydrogen. In committee, the government told us that it would prefer to develop the hydrogen market without making a distinction. Anyone who is familiar with the energy sector would tell us that the worst idea out there right now is grey hydrogen. There is no way that making hydrogen out of oil and gas is environmentally friendly. It is anything but.

Lastly, I want to talk about the forestry industry. There is nothing in Bill C-30 about the much-talked-about $55 million that was announced for the investments in forest industry transformation program, or IFIT. Why is it not in there? I do not know. Fifty-five million dollars is nothing. It is peanuts compared to the support that was announced for the oil and gas industry. There is nothing about that in Bill C-30.

I do not have much time left, but, in closing, I want to tell my friend, the leader of the government, that I am not trying to pick a fight, but when my head is itchy, I scratch it, and when my backside is itchy, I scratch that. It is important to be consistent.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, the Liberal government's budget implementation bill.

It took almost two years for the Liberals to get around to presenting a budget, the longest period in Canadian history without a budget. For decades there had never been a gap of more than two years between budgets, until the current Liberal government. Despite COVID-19, all other G7 countries produced budgets last year, so too did our provinces and territories, yet for two years, Canadians expecting the Liberal government to lay out its priorities in an open and transparent fashion were left waiting.

The fact we are here today debating this bill is positive, but presenting a budget is one of the bare minimums expected of any government. Now that we have this budget, it has been something of a letdown. One would think that after two years with time to prepare the Liberals would knock it out of the park, but that is not what happened.

As I listened to debate on this bill and reviewed the contents in my role on the Standing Committee on Finance, I have been struck more by what is absent from the budget than what is included. I noticed the Liberals are doing the bare minimum of what is expected of them and then expecting accolades in return.

As Canadians continue to face challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed upon governments in response to COVID-19, Conservatives have been clear that those struggling need support. When the government forces someone to close down their business or prevents customers from shopping at their store, the government has a duty to support them through that situation. When the government forces people to stay home and prevents them from earning an income, the government has a duty to support them through that situation. Everyone in this House gets that and I think they all support it.

Measures to that effect included in Bill C-30 are important, but they are the bare minimum the government can do for Canadians during this time. A serious budget would do something more. It would include a road map to help Canadians move beyond this endless cycle of restrictions and lockdowns. It would include a data-driven plan to safely reopen the economy.

As we have heard time and time again from witnesses at the finance committee, a plan would help many small businesses, many hard-hit industries, looking for some certainty to help them plan for the future. Workers employed in sectors like tourism and hospitality, the aviation industry or our border communities depend on cross-border travel. They deserve to know when their lives will return to normal.

As Canadian families struggle to recover from a tough year, budget 2021 offers little encouragement. Instead, the Liberals are asking Canadians to accept the bare minimum. Besides a safe plan for reopening, this budget was a missed opportunity to address the need to support Canada's economic recovery and growth. After living with COVID-19 in Canada for more than a year, how can the government still be spinning its tires?

Upon reviewing this budget, many economists have lamented the troubling reality that this budget is more about short-term benefit than positioning our economy for long-term success. I know the Liberals like to look good, but I would argue that doing good, not just looking good, is what Canadians want and expect from their government.

For example, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said, “What we're seeing in some other jurisdictions is that the focus is more squarely on the growth.” Another former Bank of Canada governor, David Dodge, noted “a lack of growth-focused initiatives in the budget.”

Robert Asselin, a former top economic adviser to the Liberal government described the new spending as “unfocused and unimaginative.” He also wrote, “it was clear for some time that the government’s decision to spend more than $100 billion in so-called short-term stimulus was a political solution in search of an economic problem.”

Former clerk of the Privy Council, Kevin Lynch, said the budget “misses an urgent opportunity to rebuild our longer-term growth post-pandemic.” He also said, “Despite the extraordinary emphasis on stimulus, there is little focus and few measures to rebuild Canada's longer-term growth.”

These comments, taken together, point to a real problem. If one's house is on fire, one wants and expects the fire department to come to one's aid. When it is the only house on fire, the resources are best directed toward that home. However, if the fire department showed up and sprayed a little water on that home then moved on to spray some water on the neighbour's place then turned around and sprayed the houses across the street, one would seriously question their approach.

It matters where the flow of water is directed, yet this seems to be the approach taken with this budget. There is no focus, no intentionality in terms of directing resources where they are actually required so Canada can move beyond the economic harms inflicted throughout COVID and thrive once again. Without doing the hard work of determining where federal tax dollars can be most impactful, the Liberals are asking Canadians to accept their bare minimum effort.

As Canada continues to grapple with COVID-19, one of the most important tasks of the government was to provide increased sustainable funding to the provinces for the provision of health care. This request was made by the provinces and supported by organizations like the Canadian Medical Association.

The CMA stated:

As provinces and territories continue to struggle with the ever-increasing cost of providing care, the federal government must follow through on its own promise to work with premiers on revisiting the Canada Health Transfer. Without this collaboration, our healthcare system, which has been put through the ultimate stress test, will struggle to recover.

Perhaps now more than ever Canadians recognize the importance of ensuring our health care system is sustainable. Unfortunately the Liberal budget does not. It touches on mental health and long-term care, but does not take the biggest and strongest step in the right direction by responding to the requests made by the province. Again, it does the bare minimum.

Another big concern is that the Liberals continue an avoidance of implementing a meaningful fiscal anchor to guide levels of public spending. In their budget document, there is only one reference, which states:

The government is committed to unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.

This is extremely vague. This is not a fiscal anchor; it is aspirational. At best, it is a wish list. There is not a hard stop to be found in the budget and no specific benchmarks that have been clearly established as fiscal anchors. At best, we could call them perhaps a guardrail.

Economist Jack Mintz wrote:

This is a pretty weak fiscal anchor. It perpetuates deficit financing forever. It is also easily violated every time the economy slips into a recession, such as our recent one. As debt ratchets up as a share of the economy, the rule permits bigger and bigger federal deficits over time.

I like the definition of a fiscal anchor offered by the Business Council of Canada. It notes, “notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy.” Its definition identifies the purpose of a fiscal anchor as well as:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

These are the types of fiscal anchors the Liberals should have been striving for, yet, once again, they are offering Canadians the bare minimum in an attempt to be transparent and accountable but without actually committing to a real metric.

To try and showcase the budget as something more than a bare minimum budget, the Liberals announced big plans for child care. The government could have taken the time to better understand the unique needs of parents and families, but instead of doing the hard work, it is pushing a one-size-fits-all Ottawa-knows-best approach to child care in Canada.

The Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario has highlighted the consequences of this proposal: uncertainty for families, limited access, job losses at existing day cares and the closure of many women-owned small businesses.

Andrea Hannen told the finance committee, “We shouldn't have systems that require families to mold themselves to the system. The system should evolve to allow families to be in the driver's seat.”

The committee also heard from Andrea Mrozek, a mother and child care researcher. When I asked her about the Liberal child care plan, she said, “It's not an equitable way...of helping families who address their child care need in many diverse ways.”

By pursuing a plan that perhaps is good for press for the Liberal government, it leaves many Canadians behind. The Liberals yet again having shown that this budget is only about doing the bare minimum. Canadian families need more than the bare minimum. They need a budget that helps those struggling through COVID-19 today and sets them up to succeed tomorrow. They need a budget that does not just spend for the sake of spending, but rather makes targeted investments that will generate tangible results for all Canadians. They need a budget that sets real goals for ensuring Canada's long-term fiscal sustainability, a budget that supports families in making best choices for themselves. Sadly, this bare minimum budget does not cut it.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the hon. member enough for allowing me to conclude. What I want to say to every member in the House of Commons is that this is about helping protect Canadians' health, supporting our workers and businesses and giving assistance to those who have been hardest hit by this pandemic. Supporting this budget and Bill C-30 is what will really help Canada build back better.

As the member heard, it is very comprehensive. It is about taking care of our most vulnerable, assisting our businesses so they can bridge this pandemic and this difficult time. It is about helping our students and our seniors. This is the time to invest in Canadians. We know Canadians work hard and we are going to continue to invest in Canadians so that we will create those million jobs and build back better.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I live in Mississauga and I proudly represent my constituents of Mississauga East—Cooksville. I know how hard they work to provide for their families; protect their health and provide a better education for their kids, which we know are the keys to a better future; and to take care of their aging parents and grandparents. In short, they work to build and to dream. That is what Mississauga East—Cooksville is all about, and in turn, that is what the Canadian dream is from coast to coast to coast.

That is why, when a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic such as COVID-19 shook the very foundations of our health care, and social and economic systems, our government stepped up and ensured that we would do everything we could to help protect Canadians. As the Prime Minister often says, we have Canadians' backs, meaning we will be there for Canadians every step of the way to support them and to help them weather this storm. The actions we have taken have helped Canadians stay safe and buffer the worst economic impacts.

This third wave has hit hard, with further public health restrictions and regional lockdowns leading to many Canadians facing unemployment or reduced hours this last couple of months. As we work to finish the fight against COVID-19, we will continue to support Canadians through programs such as the Canada recovery benefit, a more flexible EI program and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which continue to be lifelines for so many Canadians.

That is why we announced through budget 2021 that we will be maintaining flexible access to EI benefits for another year until the fall of 2022, fulfilling our campaign promise to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks, extending the Canada recovery benefit by an additional 12 weeks until September 25, and expanding the Canada workers benefit to support low-wage workers.

These are historic investments that address the most pressing issues exacerbated by COVID-19, which are to put people first, create jobs, grow the middle class, set businesses back on a track, and ensure a healthier, greener and more prosperous Canada.

I would like to commend the Minister of Finance because Bill C-30 brings us to the next stage. It is a recovery plan for jobs, growth and resilience, the Government of Canada’s plan to finish the fight against COVID-19 and ensure a robust economic recovery that brings all Canadians along. The COVID-19 recession is the steepest and fastest economic contraction since the Great Depression. It has disproportionately affected low-wage workers, young people, women, and racialized Canadians.

The pandemic has laid bare long-standing inequities in our economy. Budget 2021 is an inclusive plan that takes action to break down barriers to full economic participation for all Canadians. It would establish a $15 federal minimum wage.

For businesses, it has been a two-speed recession, with some finding ways to prosper and grow, but many businesses, especially small businesses, fighting to survive. Budget 2021 is a plan to bridge Canadians and Canadian businesses through the crisis and toward a robust recovery. It proposes to extend business and income support measures through to the fall and to make investments to create jobs and help businesses across the economy come roaring back. Budget 2021 is a plan that puts the government on track to meet its commitment to create one million jobs by the end of the year.

Budget 2021 is a historic investment to address the specific wounds of the COVID-19 recession by putting people first, creating jobs, growing the middle class, setting businesses on track for that long-term growth, and ensuring that Canada’s future will be healthier, more equitable, greener and more prosperous.

The Government of Canada’s top priority remains protecting Canadians’ health and safety, particularly during this third, aggressive wave of the virus and its variants. Vaccine rollout is under way across Canada, with federal government support in every province and territory.

In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, over 60% of adults have received their first vaccine, and this past weekend we began to inoculate kids 12 and over. I accompanied my 15-year-old twin boys, Alexander and Sebastien, to get their first shot through Trillium Health Partners Mississauga Hospital mass vaccination site this weekend.

I want to thank all the frontline staff, volunteers and emergency services for making the experience a friendly, efficient safe and secure one. We could see how proud, joyful, hopeful and, I have to say, patriotic people felt, that they were doing their part to safeguard themselves, their family members, their community and their country by getting vaccinated and helping shield us from this horrible virus. People are starting to be cautiously hopeful as vaccines roll out and we approach herd immunity. Canadians can dream once again of something approaching normality.

During last week's constituency week, I had the opportunity to meet with Mississauga and Peel Region's leadership team of elected officials, management and stakeholders to discuss long-term care and the continuum of care with a focus on our seniors and vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained our long-term care facilities across the country and in my community of Mississauga East—Cooksville like never before. I want to thank the Minister of Finance for the well-deserved measures to strengthen long-term care and supportive care.

Many seniors have faced economic challenges as they take on extra costs to stay safe and protect their health. This 2021 budget proposes to provide $90 million to Employment and Social Development Canada, a government department responsible for social programs, to launch the age well at home initiative. This initiative would assist community-based organizations to provide practical support that helps low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors to age in place, such as matching seniors with volunteers who can help them with meal preparation, home maintenance, daily errands, yardwork and transportation. This initiative would also target regional and national projects to help expand services that have already demonstrated results helping seniors stay in their homes. Funding would be provided over a three-year period starting in 2021-22. I am pleased to say that many non-profits and charitable organizations working with seniors across the country stand to benefit from this measure.

In addition, the 2021 budget proposes to build on work conducted by the Health Standards Organization and Canadian Standards Association in launching a process to develop national standards focused on improving the quality of life of seniors in long-term care homes. This budget would provide $3 billion over five years to Health Canada to support provinces and territories, ensuring standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made; and, $41.3 million over six years and $7.7 million ongoing, starting in 2021-22, for Statistics Canada to improve data infrastructure and data collection on supportive care, primary care and pharmaceuticals.

We made a campaign commitment promising to increase old age security, OAS, benefits for seniors aged 75 and older. Many seniors are living longer and they are relying on monthly benefits to afford retirement. These funds would be delivered in two steps. The 2021 budget would support seniors by providing a one-time payment this August of $500 and increase regular OAS payments for pensioners 75 and over by 10% on an ongoing basis as of July next year. This would increase the benefits for approximately 3.3 million seniors, providing additional benefits of $766 for full pensioners in the first year and indexed to inflation going forward. This would give seniors more financial security later in life, particularly at the time when they face increased care expenses. In total, the two measures represent $12 billion over five years for our seniors in additional financial support, beginning in 2021-22; and at least $3 billion per year ongoing, to be delivered by Employment and Social Development Canada.

Budget 2021 invests in Canada's biomanufacturing and life sciences sector to rebuild domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity. It has a plan to put in place national standards for long-term care and mental health services.

Budget 2021 makes a generational investment to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. This is a plan to drive economic growth, increase women's participation in the workforce and offer each child in Canada the best start in life. Budget 2021 would invest almost $30 billion over the next five years and provide permanent ongoing funding, working with provincial and territorial and indigenous partners to support quality not-for-profit child care, ensuring the needs of early childhood educators are at the heart of the system. The goal is to reach $10 per day on average by—

The House resumed from May 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

With that, on behalf of the committee I want to thank all the witnesses who appeared today. This is our final hearing on Bill C-30 before we turn to clause-by-clause. We've heard from a lot of witnesses, a lot of diverse witnesses, every day. Thank you for taking the time, some of you on very short notice, to appear, put together your presentations and answer our questions.

With that, the meeting is adjourned. All the best.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy being here in the House to talk about various bills. I have to say it has been a while. I feel a bit rusty, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House of Commons staff who support us and make these hybrid sittings possible. When we are at home, we can be in our ridings. I am grateful to them because I think it is just incredible that this all came together so quickly. I also want to thank the interpreters. Their work is so important, and we do not say that often enough.

We have waited two years for the Liberal government's budget. Let us not blame everything on the pandemic. Canada was the only G7 country that did not introduce a budget in 2020. All the provinces introduced budgets too. The federal government kept us waiting.

Admittedly, there are some good things in this budget, which I will come back to. However, there are some gaping omissions. The Bloc Québécois has made its position clear on those. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean outlined them clearly earlier: seniors and health have been forgotten. It is quite ironic, given that we are experiencing one of the worst health crises in our history. We think that that is where investment is needed, to support the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec.

The government ignored the unanimous request made by the House through the motion that was tabled by the Bloc Québécois and accepted. It also ignored the unanimous requests of the provincial premiers, who asked for health transfers to be increased from 22% to 35%.

As I was just saying, it is inconceivable that we could be going through a health crisis without making the necessary investments in health care. Seniors are not getting enough. We did see a glimmer of hope. The Liberal government got in on a promise it made in 2019 to increase old age security. That is great, but the government is not going far enough. It is forgetting seniors aged 65 to 74 who are also in financial difficulty, just like those aged 75 and over. The government is increasing pensions for seniors aged 75 and over, but only by roughly $60 a month, which we do not think is not enough. We in the Bloc Québécois have been asking for an increase of $110 per month, and we will continue to lead that debate. The House has not heard the last of the Bloc on this issue, because the people of all regions of Quebec deserve it.

This comment comes up a lot in my riding. Grandparents, who have worked incredibly hard all their lives, feel so neglected by the federal government, even though they are the ones who have suffered the most in this pandemic, both mentally and physically. This virus can be extremely harmful to their health. It is appalling that they are being let down like this, when we thought we were making progress with this request.

I would like to talk about the money being allocated to the tourism industry in this budget. For a region like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, tourism is extremely important. The fact that some emergency assistance programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the rent subsidy, are being extended will certainly help many businesses back home. I commend that, but there are businesses that were in financial difficulty before the pandemic or that were having a hard time finding workers. Some other programs that were necessary for some people, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, are now hobbling business owners. It was already hard enough to find people who wanted to go to work, and things did not get any easier once the situation stabilized a bit. There were pros and cons to this program. It is a little frustrating because business owners are the ones paying the price. It is important to have targeted assistance for this type of sector, but that is not really what we are seeing. Yes, a few million dollars has been allocated to the tourism industry, but the devil is often in the details. When we look a bit closer, hundreds of millions of dollars are going into ad campaigns to make sure people go visit the various regions of Canada. That is good, but is that really the way to help our industries and our small businesses? That is the question. I think we can do several things at the same time.

Allow me to share some figures. The tourism industry is a vital part of the economy in the Gaspé region. There are 700 businesses and nearly 7,000 jobs, 50% of which are permanent. This is not just a seasonal industry.

Businesses in the area benefit from tourism year-round, which is good. The region saw around $16 billion in economic spinoffs in 2019, but that figure dropped to $5 billion in 2020. This more than $10-billion drop represents a lot of money, and business owners are the ones taking the hit. It is shameful that they are not getting direct assistance, which we have been calling for since the beginning of the pandemic. The message does not seem to be getting through to the other side of the House, though.

As we gradually reopen over the summer, I truly hope that the industry will recover. However, we must bear in mind that there are still no international tourists or cruises, so we cannot expect to see the same results, the same amount of money coming in. The sector will need targeted assistance from the federal government, and that is what we are calling for.

When I see all the different Canada-wide programs that are being announced, such as the national child care program, I realize that it may be good news for the provinces that do not have this type of program. However, Quebec already has a day care program.

We have heard the Prime Minister speak about an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec to redirect these funds. I do not really understand what is meant by an asymmetrical agreement, but it looks like interference to me. The Government of Quebec has been managing its day care system very well for many years. If the federal government decides to implement a similar program, it must give Quebec the money it is owed with no strings attached. Letting Quebec invest these amounts as it sees fit seems perfectly logical to me.

In regions like mine, there is definitely a shortage of day care spaces. Elected officials and families are saying so. However, it is up to Quebec to decide how to use these funds in its system. I believe that it is in the federal government's interest to redistribute these funds without conditions, but that is not the message we are hearing at this time.

I would also like to talk a bit about the environment. Bill C-30 offers no details about how the government plans to invest the funds announced in the budget. I hope that will be revealed in another bill soon because we are talking about $17 billion in green recovery funding. As I said earlier, $17 billion seems like a heck of a lot of money, but consider this: It is exactly what the government will have invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline alone.

Considering the fact that the government continues to invest heavily in the oil and gas industry, we have to wonder how committed it is to fighting climate change. That is a little frustrating too. The budget allocates a mere $1 billion to climate change adaptation. People in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé are very concerned about shoreline erosion, and they are experiencing more and more floods. Stakeholders in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé have said how disappointing it is to see so little money invested in adaptation. The Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent has pointed out that rebuilding roads only to have them destroyed again the next year is not good enough. What people need is a multi-year framework and actions that will stand the test of time.

I still have several things to say, so I will say them quickly. In the budget, the government announced that, if all of the proposed measures were put in place, Canada would be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 36%. However, according to people in my region, that reduction is not enough. The executive director of the Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent thinks that number is all well and good but that it is lower than Quebec's commitments and the targets adopted by many countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement. The federal government itself realized that several days later and announced a range of higher targets. Ambition is all well and good, but the measures that were announced are not consistent with that ambition. We need to look at how we can align all of that.

Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that members are beginning the clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-12 tomorrow in committee. I heard the minister assure us that he was going to include this new target in the bill, but that does not seem to be the case based on what we are seeing in the amendments. I am anxious to see how the government will keep its promise with regard to fighting climate change, because that is the challenge of this century, and we really need to address it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by welcoming the witnesses and thanking them for their presentations. Their input was very enlightening.

My questions are for Mr. Paquet and Mr. Ryan, of the Alliance de l'industrie touristique du Québec.

Your presentation was quite worrisome, Mr. Paquet. Basically, you said, that until the borders open again, the government absolutely has to maintain the current subsidy rates for businesses in the tourism sector. The measures in Bill C-30 miss the mark because, even though they extend the subsidies until September, the rates are being reduced.

Did I get that right?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate this afternoon on Bill C-30, which is the government's first budget implementation act from this year's budget.

When I approach legislation that comes before the House of Commons, my first priority is always to look to see how this impacts people, families, communities and the businesses located within my riding of Perth—Wellington. What I also look for when I review these pieces of legislation is what might be missing, what important aspects might be missing from legislation and how that would impact the people of Perth—Wellington and by extension, people of the region and of the country.

There is no question that COVID-19 has had a significant and ongoing impact on our communities, on individuals, on their health and on their lives. Sadly, more than 25,000 Canadians have died due to COVID-19, countless others have fallen sick and some are continuing to experience the long-term health impacts of COVID-19.

From an economic standpoint, the ongoing lockdowns have created challenges for businesses. They have created stress, anxiety and feelings of loneliness. Many Canadians are feeling isolated because of this ongoing challenge. Coast to coast to coast businesses have had to shut down, have had to lay off their employees and, in some cases, have gone out of business altogether.

A country without a strong and vibrant small business sector is not really much of a country at all. We rely on small businesses as the lifeblood of our communities and the employer of so many Canadians.

As the official opposition, there is a duty on our part to not only review legislation, but many times to encourage and promote improvements. We have done this countless times throughout this pandemic.

I reflect back to early in the pandemic when our opposition members criticized but also encouraged the government to come to the table with a more generous wage subsidy. When the government initially announced 10%, it was us as the opposition who encouraged Liberals to come to the table with a more meaningful option.

The same goes for the back-to-work bonus that we proposed throughout the summer, encouraging that incentive that when jobs came available, people were able to take them without losing their entire CERB payments.

Unfortunately, though, when it comes to this budget and this budget implementation act, it looks more like a pre-election plan rather than a meaningful plan forward for recovery.

I draw the House's attention to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's May 5 report in which he writes:

The Government did not make a clear link between the measures in Budget 2021 and its $70-to-$100 billion stimulus plan announced in the Fall Economic Statement. Rather, Budget 2021 combines $36.8 billion in additional COVID-19 spending along with other new spending...

Once again, we see the Liberal government using the guise of COVID-19 for other non-related funding and spending.

This week is Tourism Week and the riding of Perth—Wellington is certainly proud to host so many amazing tourism attractions, some that I highlighted earlier today in Statements by Members. I think of the Stratford Festival, the Stratford Summer Music, SpringWorks, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and, of course, Drayton Entertainment.

You will know Drayton Entertainment, Mr. Speaker, because one of the theatres is also located in your riding. Originally, the first theatre, the Drayton Festival Theatre, was in Drayton and is now in the township of Mapleton. Drayton Entertainment is one of those amazing theatres with an amazing offering each year across its seven theatres.

One unique thing about Drayton Entertainment is that it has not in the past received operational funding from the government. Instead, it has been self-sufficient, and relied on donors' funds and box office revenues to make its impact in the community. Unfortunately, this success has also hindered it throughout this COVID-19 pandemic. Last spring, when the government announced the emergency support fund for cultural, heritage and sport organizations, organizations like Drayton Entertainment were not eligible because it had not received past funding through the Canada Council for the Arts.

I raised this issue in the House early in the pandemic in the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sadly, that issue has not yet been addressed.

Going forward in this budget, we saw another commitment to the recovery fund for arts, culture and sports sectors. This might be a positive sign, but I worry, and I know that many arts and cultural organizations worry, that the same criteria will once again be used for this funding and thereby wonderful artistic and cultural organizations, such as Drayton Entertainment, will be unable to access these important funds. I will call on the government very clearly to ensure that this funding envelope is directed to all arts and cultural organizations as they look for recovery.

Another concern that we have had with the government spending on COVID-19 relief is the impact on new businesses. I hear from far too many constituents in my riding who signed a lease just before the pandemic hit, or who took over a business just before the pandemic hit or the week the pandemic hit. I heard of one constituent who literally signed their lease on March 13, 2020, and because of the pandemic's impact on their business, they have never been able to really get off the ground. Since day one, the government relief packages have not addressed new businesses. Not only did these business owners have the misfortune of starting their businesses during a worldwide global pandemic, they are also fighting with their own government to get the support they are in dire need of.

We called on this before. We have raised this in question period. We have raised this in debate. We have raised this at committees. I am imploring government members to please ensure that, going forward, government support programs for businesses are targeted and are able to be accessed by new business owners who only had the misfortune of starting during a global pandemic.

I want to talk a little about division 37 of the budget implementation act. Those Canadians paying attention may find it strange that within an omnibus budget implementation act the government also proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act. Colleagues may know that within the corridors of this very building, many are referring to division 37 as the John Nater vindication act, because it fixes the clause that I made an amendment on in the Procedures and House Affairs Committee during the previous Parliament. I was adding back the word “knowingly” in the rule about publishing false statements that affect election results.

Sadly, the government did not adopt that small but meaningful amendment. What happened? The government was taken to court, where the court ruled that this aspect of the Canada Elections Act was unconstitutional. Instead of relying on the advice of the official opposition in the previous Parliament, the government instead went with its misinformed approach. The result was a finding that it was unconstitutional. In a scathing decision, Justice Davies wrote about the advice that came from the Privy Council Office which is, in fact, the Prime Minister's own department. Justice Davies wrote, “More importantly, the advice given to the standing committee by Mr. Morin,” a senior policy adviser, “that the inclusion of the word knowingly in section 91.1 was unnecessary, redundant and confusing was, for several reasons, incorrect and potentially misleading.” At paragraph 58 he went on to state, “To the extent that Mr. Morin testified about the import of removing knowingly from section 91.1, his comments were inaccurate and cannot be taken as reflecting Parliament's true intention.”

In the other place, Senator Batters tried to take the president of the privy council to task on this matter, but he refused to take responsibility and he refused to hold his own department accountable for the misinformation that its public servants provided and that resulted in an unconstitutional finding by the courts.

I want to say this very clearly. I will not be supporting this budget implementation act because it does not address the meaningful concerns of people in Perth—Wellington, who are just trying to get ahead.

[Christine Gervais, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of Parliament. On behalf of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, COPA, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

We are very concerned about the proposed provision of a luxury tax on new aircraft in Bill C-30. The equivalency placed on a $100,000 car to an aircraft of the same value as being a luxury is flawed. While there are hundreds of conventional and hybrid green automotive brands selling below that threshold, there are virtually no available new aircraft or helicopters. There is an abundance of new boats that can be purchased for less than $250,000. A basic single-engine aircraft used for flight training sells today for $500,000. The threshold placed on new personal aircraft is a highly unrealistic one.

Thinking that only the wealthy own private aircraft in Canada is misrepresentative. Among the Canadians who own personal aircraft are medical professionals who travel to remote and northern communities not serviced by commercial charter operators, to service and treat their patients. Small business owners use their personal aircraft in locations that are also not accessible to mainstream operators, ensuring their goods and services are available to all Canadians. Farmers depend on their crop-dusting aircraft as a tool to ensure the successful production of their crops. Personal aircraft are used to transport food, clothing and other essential items to smaller communities hit hard by major storms or events like COVID-19, and also used by flight training schools.

Budget 2021 proposes that the tax apply to all new aircraft suitable for personal use, and that, as a general rule, large aircraft typically used in commercial activities, such as those having a certified maximum carrying capacity of more than 39 passengers, be excluded from the base. These are medium and large aircraft classifications and, therefore, it implies that all small aircraft would be taxed.

Aircraft in Canada are registered with Transport Canada as either private or commercial, regardless of classification. Therefore, the tax would apply to all small private or commercial aircraft.

Who owns these aircraft? In 2021, a little over 100 new aircraft were registered as private and 25 registered as commercial. Of the private, 50% were registered to an individual. The balance are registered to a business, the same small businesses that have been pushed to the brink and beyond, such as farmers for crop-dusting and flight training schools. Of the small commercial aircraft, 63% are crop-dusters, 12% are flight training aircraft used for the training of the next generation of airline pilots, and 25% are air charters used for cargo, bringing medical supplies, food and essential goods to remote and northern regions of Canada.

Who, then, will truly be impacted by this new luxury tax? It will be the air operator who serves Canada's remote and northern regions and contributes to the travel and tourism industry, one of the hardest-hit industries due to COVID; flight training schools; frontline workers accessing remote communities; aircraft manufacturers based in Canada; and farmers.

Operators who purchase new aircraft and pay the tax will pass that cost on to the customer. Flight training schools will charge more for flight training. Farmers will have to charge more for their crops. In the end, it isn't the so-called wealthy Canadian paying, but the middle- to lower-class consumer who will be paying the price for the tax.

This new tax might also have environmental and safety impacts by discouraging the purchase of new aircraft with lower operating costs and greener technology. The more onerous the cost of ownership becomes the less pilots will fly, thus affecting the essential business that our aerodromes and local communities rely on. Our vulnerable airport system has already been experiencing difficulties, especially this past year. The thousands of aerodromes in Canada, many located in remote communities, depend on general aviation.

Based on an economic impact study of general aviation in Canada in 2017, this sector contributes $9.3 billion in economic output nationally and directly accounts for almost 36,000 full-time jobs in communities across the country. The report highlights the benefits that general aviation operations bring to communities and to the Canadian economy. Penalizing this industry with an arbitrary tax will harm the Canadian economy as a whole.

The vast majority who own these new aircraft are not the most affluent Canadians. It will mostly penalize the agriculture industry, educational institutes, remote communities and aircraft manufacturers in Canada. COPA is recommending that the Canadian government re-evaluate the criteria of its proposed new luxury tax and exclude all new aircraft typically suited for personal use from its proposal.

Thank you again for the opportunity to voice our concerns. We remain available to provide additional feedback.

[Anthony Norejko, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Business Aviation Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss the implications of Bill C-30 on Canada's $12.1-billion business aviation sector. While this is our the first appearance before the finance committee, the Canadian Business Aviation Association has been representing this sector for a long time. In fact, this is our 60th anniversary. Today we represent over 400 members across the country, including corporate flight departments, flight management companies and entrepreneurs who use aircraft to conduct and grow their businesses.

I would like to share a few facts about business aviation and how it contributes to Canada's social and economic well-being. Despite the myth that business aviation is used exclusively by the 1%, the reality is that our sector is essential to a wide range of individuals in everything from business suits to construction boots. The reality is that business aviation is a significant driver of economic growth and jobs across Canada and can be an anchor in our economic recovery.

Given Canada's vast size, complex geography and small population, aircraft have been a niche tool to deliver personnel, food and supplies, equipment and other essential services to communities of all sizes, many of which have only the most basic airstrip for landing and taking off.

Business aviation employs a wide variety of aircraft from four-seat, propeller-driven aircraft to long-range, Canadian-made Bombardier Global 7500s as well as Boeing 737s. These time machines are used to serve our communities, get workers to remote job sites and ensure that people can travel by air safely, efficiently and with all health protocols firmly in place. Today, with Canada's major carriers having cancelled flights to dozens of Canadian communities, business aviation has become even more important to delivering cargo, personnel and supplies and ensuring that commerce and trade can continue to support local jobs and businesses.

Our sector, which represents over 50,000 Canadian jobs in highly skilled and well-paying professions, gives Canada's entrepreneurs and corporations a much-needed competitive advantage. Moreover, supporting the use of these aircraft also supports Canadian aviation research, development and manufacturing giants such as Bombardier, CAE, Pratt & Whitney Canada, De Havilland and Diamond Aircraft, to name just a few.

While there are many aspects of Bill C-30 we'd like address, the chief among these is the luxury tax on private aircraft. The first critical point you need to know is that very few aircraft fall into the personal luxury category. They are nothing like yachts or high-end cars. They are not a lifestyle choice, but rather a safe, reliable and efficient mode of transportation. The imposition of such a tax on aircraft used for business purposes will have a number of downstream negative implications for safety, sustainability and for the people, businesses and communities that rely on our aircraft.

With the cost of a new tax to consider, operators will be incented to hold on to aircraft that are older and less sustainable. This would be unfortunate, as business aircraft are the most technologically advanced and sustainable aircraft in production, and this would add to Canada's overall effort to reduce their carbon footprint. Moreover, this tax would have the perverse effect of incentivizing operators to purchase and register aircraft in other countries. Dampening demand for new, made-in-Canada aircraft sales also has an implication for Canada's aviation talent pipeline, as you will hear from my colleague from the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association.

The negative impacts will also be felt by non-aviation Canadian businesses that rely on aircraft as a business tool. All the way from construction and mining to the C-suites of Canadian corporations, it is our view that any benefits in imposing this tax are far outweighed by the costs. Compared with other items the luxury tax would apply to, their revenue brought in by aircraft is projected to be limited. According to the parliamentary budget office, the totality of this tax on vehicles, yachts and aircraft will generate $150 million per year. The bulk of that, 70%, is anticipated to come from vehicle sales, and the remainder from boats and aircraft. Therefore, we're looking at tax revenues from the sale of aircraft of less than $15 million per year.

Moreover, this tax is unfair and unsupportable as Canadian taxes such as GST and applicable PST are already applied to the purchase of aircraft, while the personal use of an aircraft is already recognized as a non-deductible taxable benefit to the individual. As well, the Income Tax Act does not specify or limit the type or size of aircraft. An airplane of any size can be used for business purposes. The fact that the Income Tax Act makes no distinction as to what type of aircraft could be used for business purposes directly contradicts the budget's definition of personal.

Our time today is limited, so we won't have the opportunity to detail the many ways that government and the business aviation community can work together to build back Canada's economy. I hope to share some of these ideas with you when we get into the question and answer period.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you, and I welcome your questions.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the implementation bill we are debating today will put a stamp on federal politics for many years. That is why it is crucial that we, as parliamentarians, take the time to analyze this bill and to ask the difficult questions that must be put to the government. It goes without saying that this is not a small bill. That is understandable given the context.

Given the little time at my disposal, my comments will focus on measures contained in divisions 1, 5, 6, 9, 24 and 32.

I hope the government will answer our written questions, as it is in the interest of all Quebeckers and all Canadians for each question to be answered. It is the government's role to obtain the support of the House for its budget and its bill, and it is our role to question it.

Some measures in Bill C-30 are good, such as extending until September 25 critical support programs like the wage subsidy and rent relief. I would remind the House, however, that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget since the government ignored our two key demands, namely to provide adequate and recurring health funding, which was and still is a demand of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, as well as to increase the old age security pension for seniors 65 and up.

As I was saying, obviously some measures in the budget are good, but when it comes to those two things, the government ignored common sense by offering one-time cosmetic solutions to problems that are much more serious and well documented.

Worse than that, the House of Commons adopted a motion that goes with our demand. I can understand that the government does not want to cave to the Bloc Québécois, but I should remind it that it has to at least consider the will of the people represented by those elected to the House.

I will read a few very clear lines from the motion.

That the House:

...(c) highlight the work of Quebec and the provinces in responding to the health crisis and note the direct impact on their respective budgets; and

(d) call on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers...

Again, the government must significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers.

The government needs to get the message we have sent over and over. Health transfers need to go up from 22% to 35%. Unfortunately, Bill C-30 includes just a one-time health transfer increase, which is downright unambitious. As fate would have it, the 2021 budget deficit is precisely $28 billion lower than expected, which is pretty ironic seeing as that is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. The government would have us believe its political choice, which will compromise everyone's health, is actually a budget choice.

The government's handling of old age security is also more politically motivated than anything else. The Liberals are creating two classes of seniors: those they can buy and those they cannot.

Let me be clear: I will not object to some seniors receiving the help they need, as outlined in Bill C-30. However, I do object to the Liberals thinking that financial insecurity starts at a specific age, when in fact it is much more the result of retiring and leaving the workforce. Furthermore, what the Liberals are proposing to give is clearly insufficient for vulnerable people, regardless of their age. Sixty-three dollars a month is not even enough to buy a few days' worth of groceries. If the Liberals thought they could change the world with that, they are mistaken.

Also, this measure is a campaign promise that was made two years ago and was clearly thought up before the price increases caused by COVID-19. When it comes into effect, people between the ages of 65 and 74, or half the current recipients, will be very eager to reach their 75th birthday. Unfortunately, they will realize that pensions will not be much more generous than they have been.

In addition, in spite of what the Liberals might say, some of them have tried to deny the truth. One minister said, and I quote:

…contrary to what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting, we chose to give more to the most vulnerable seniors, instead of giving less to a greater number of people.

I am not the best at math, but $63 is less than $110. I want everyone to know and take note that the Bloc Québécois is more generous toward seniors than the Liberals, and it will continue to call for a substantial increase of $110 a month for all seniors, as it has over the past few years.

Another point on which we disagree with the Liberals is about how Bill C-30 lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime. I do not need to paint a picture. The Bloc Québécois and Quebec are, of course, strongly opposed to that.

It is very simple. Division of Bill C-30 is the realization of a very dear dream of Toronto's financial elite, the dream of stripping Quebec of its financial sector. That would be done at the expense of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, who would have to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to fund Bay Street's supremacy in a jurisdiction that has been repeatedly confirmed as provincial.

Everyone in Quebec is against it and is speaking with one voice, which is something that is seldom seen: political parties, business communities, the financial sector, labour-sponsored funds and unions. In addition to the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly, there is also the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Centre corporation, the Desjardins Group, Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco, Molson, and the list goes on.

A strong Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec means thousands of jobs in North America's only French-speaking metropolis. Nearly 150,000 jobs in Quebec depend on it, and $20 billion is generated. This plan would inevitably result in a shift of regulation activities outside Quebec and is an attack on our ability to keep our head offices and preserve our businesses. One would have to be blind and deaf not to see it. Quebeckers can count on the Bloc, for we will do everything in our power to block this bill.

On another note, as many people know, I am the Bloc Québécois critic for international co-operation and the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Accordingly, it is understandable that I am very concerned about division 6 of Bill C-30 dealing with the Sergei Magnitsky Law. Section 7 of that act, which requires banks, insurance companies and loan companies to disclose certain information on a monthly basis, will be amended by Bill C-30 to make that requirement quarterly, which I simply do not understand. I see this as reducing the obligations of financial institutions and a setback for human rights. It does nothing to ensure enforcement or to strengthen monitoring activities, when it is well known that these reports are of paramount importance to the legislation's effectiveness. I hope my hon. colleagues will have some answers on this matter.

I must say that I am quite baffled to see that division 9 of Bill C-30 removes the requirement that the superintendent of financial institutions approve changes to multi-employer pension plans in which the employer's contributions are set out in an agreement with employees. I will refrain from pointing out that the former finance minister probably wishes he had thought of this himself. Jokes aside, what is the reason for lowering the requirements for this specific type of pension plan? Do pension plans of big companies have funding issues? Is the stock market in such bad shape that pension plans are having solvency issues that warrant relaxing the laws? To me, this division of the bill sounds like the government is eliminating an important safeguard that ensures pension plans remain solvent. The government will have to explain this sooner or later.

I am running out of time, but I would be remiss if I did not speak about division 24 of Bill C-30. I commend the fact that the government wishes to give more leave to parents whose child has died or disappeared so they can reorganize their lives and deal with the tragic reality of the death of a child. However, I am disappointed that the government is agreeing to double benefits for these circumstances, but refusing to double EI sickness benefits, a subject that I had the opportunity to speak about two weeks ago.

I cannot oppose extending eligibility of this benefit to parents of a child under the age of 25 who is deceased or has disappeared, and I cannot oppose increasing the maximum length of leave from 52 to 108 weeks. One question remains and it is important that the government clarify it. If parents are separated, are both entitled to these benefits or is it custody that determines eligibility? It is important to know this because parents are separated in a growing number of Quebec and Canadian families.

In closing, the budget mentions and praises the Quebec child care system several times, claiming to be inspired by it. The reference to an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec is a positive sign, but only if this agreement comes with full and unconditional compensation for the total cost of the program's measures. That money could be used to help with the economic recovery or with the health care system, which is still underfunded because of the federal government's laxness. This Canada-wide child care program is another attempt at federal interference and cannot be seen otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget, tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Most people are using the Zoom application remotely.

The proceedings will be made available by the House of Commons website. Witnesses should be aware that the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

Before I go to witnesses, I should mention that there will be, if everybody shows up, seven witnesses on this panel, which is a little unusual. One witness called in and saw the need to speak, so we put them on this morning to make the seven. We have a two-hour panel, so we should be okay for time.

With that said, we will start with the tourism industry alliance of Quebec, with Mr. Paquet, senior director, public and governmental affairs; and Mr. Ryan, chairman of the board and owner of Ski Sutton.

Welcome to you both.

The floor is yours.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking this morning about Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

My colleagues will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget because some of our important conditions were not included. However, we will be voting in favour of the budget implementation bill, which contains plenty of promising measures.

All the same, that does not mean that we will be giving up the fight, in particular with respect to health transfers. In my opinion, it is inconceivable that a government that is running a deficit of more than $350 billion this year still refuses to help the levels of government that have the responsibilities stipulated in the original agreement.

The federal government used to pay 50% of the costs, not 22%. At this rate, it will only be paying 20% five years from now. What the provinces and Quebec are unanimously asking for is 35%. That corresponds to $28 billion, which by purest coincidence is equal to the leeway that the government decided to subtract from its deficit. I certainly think the Liberals could afford this.

Our other major condition was a decent increase in old age pensions. I am not talking about the increase of about $1.75 given to those who received the largest increase. That will just about buy them one extra coffee a year. I am talking about a decent increase of $110 a month, which is not asking much.

It feels like we keep repeating the same things. Sometimes repetition is the only way to get a point across. At a time when the government wants to launch a recovery plan involving more than $100 billion in spending, how can it justify not giving seniors some breathing room by providing $110 a month?

It is a small amount. These people will not be putting it in the bank for later, they will be spending it. That is exactly what we need for our economy this year. We need a recovery, some breathing room, help for these people who were hit so hard by the pandemic.

Another concern we have about Bill C-30 is that it lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime. Historically, the Bloc Québécois has always been opposed to this, and we are not alone. The Quebec government and Quebec's business community are unanimous in rejecting the idea. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Center, Mouvement Desjardins, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and most companies, including Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco and Molson, all agree.

Why are all of these economic stakeholders in Quebec saying that Quebec should not be losing more control to Ontario?

It is because this amounts to an attempt to move a strong financial centre to Toronto. I know that I am in the House, that I must remain calm and watch my language, but it is pretty darn hard to stay calm when faced with this constant financial expropriation. What the government wants to do is to make Quebeckers dependent, so that they think they need the rest of Canada and that they want to remain a part of it. That is the bottom line.

Why fix something that is not broken?

Quebec's securities commission is extremely effective, and it is important to have a strong economic centre. This is the institution that insisted on keeping the Montreal Stock Exchange in Montreal even after it was sold to the Toronto Stock Exchange. I will be so bold as to say that, if it had been up to Toronto, there would not be a stock exchange in Montreal anymore.

There are many jobs involved. The financial sector accounts for 150,000 jobs and contributes $20 billion to the GDP. Montreal is the 13th-largest financial centre in the world. The 578 head offices in Quebec account for 50,000 jobs. Since these are head offices, these jobs are not just ordinary jobs. They are 50,000 well-paying jobs that create more jobs. When a company's head office is located in Quebec, because that is where the financial centres are and where decisions are made, the company tends to hire within Quebec and to adapt its strategy accordingly.

That is what the federal government wants to eliminate. Well, I have news for the government: We will not allow it. We will work on it and propose amendments. I hope that the people in the government will see reason and defend Quebec's interests. I would remind them that there are elected officials from Quebec in their party.

Of course, Bill C-30 is massive and does not cover everything. We do applaud the extension of the special assistance programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, until September 25.

However, I think that the rates are dropping rapidly. Companies are not quite back on their feet yet; we need to make sure that we do not take this assistance away too soon, since companies need predictability. Last week, I received more calls from companies that have held on so far, but they are telling me that they may not be able to hold on for much longer. This is not the time to cut them off.

The creation of a hiring program is a good idea. Disallowing bonuses for senior executives of companies that received the wage subsidy is an excellent idea. I hope the rule will be applied to the letter.

Speaking of wage subsidies, I cannot help but make a brief interjection. It is a shame that I cannot refer to the presence of members in the House, because I would have definitely named someone. My Conservative colleague who spoke previously referred to the wage subsidy several times, bemoaning the fact that the government gave wage subsidies to companies that give bonuses, and yet the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP all received the wage subsidy. They have the gall to make accusations and feign outrage. It is crazy.

Sometimes I think I am dreaming. I hear a member say something and I wonder whether he really dared repeat it. Members ought to have a little decency. I am launching an appeal to the three political parties that misappropriated public funds. That is the polite way of saying what I think. I am asking them to give the money back, because it is Quebec and Canadian taxpayer money. They should not use public funds for campaign purposes, especially if they refuse to amend the laws governing the public financing of political parties. It is doubly sickening.

They announced measures in the budget to tackle tax avoidance. That is fine, but they seem pretty minor to me. More needs to be done. I know that they are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this because it is a really sore spot for them, but when are they going to do something about tax havens? If they had the courage to take action in this matter, we would have a budget surplus rather than a deficit. Let us get moving on this.

The argument that government members cannot vote in favour of Bill C-208, which aims to facilitate the transfer of SMEs, including farms, because this constitutes tax avoidance really raises my hackles. It is mind-boggling.

There are a few small positive measures on zero-emission vehicles. It is also an excellent idea to extend the tax deferral on patronage dividends for cooperatives. The industry has been asking for this for ages. However, I wonder why they have not made this measure permanent rather than extending it for another five years.

Would members like to know the real reason? The government wants to keep these people dependent and in line. In three and a half years, or four years, they will have to start begging their generous government to extend the measures again. People are more compliant in those situations. The government wants to keep us dependent, and so do the Canadian securities regulators.

The Bloc Québécois will be there to fight this.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

The problem with budget 2021 is that it is focused more on the political fortunes of the Liberal Party than on rebuilding the economy post-pandemic. That is not just me, the Conservative member for Langley—Aldergrove, speaking. The former clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch is quoted as saying that budget 2021 is an “intergenerational transfer of debt and risk [that] is unprecedented.”

Mr. Lynch continues:

As a political statement, it should yield electoral dividends. As an economic statement, it favours short-term consumption over private-sector investment, sprinkles...[dividends] initiatives far and wide, adds heavily to the federal debt, and misses an urgent opportunity to rebuild our longer-term growth post-pandemic.

He is not happy with it, but look who is smiling. The left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is smiling. Its senior economist, David Macdonald, advised the Minister of Finance to ignore “ongoing and needless concern about federal interest payments.”

Those pesky debt servicing costs take all the fun out of the party. Let us all just agree the budget will balance itself. That it is modern monetary theory at work, and we should not be surprised this is coming from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Modern monetary theory says the following: Debt and the deficit do not matter. Why do we even keep track of them because they do not matter? The only thing that matters is inflation, and as long as we keep inflation under control, everything is going to be good and fine. The proponents of modern monetary theory will tell us that inflation is under control, that it is more or less within the Bank of Canada's target range of 2%. Just recently it has gone up a bit, and I am happy to hear the member opposite acknowledging that at least there is a difference of opinion on whether inflation is just a blip or it is long-term and deeply embedded.

Let us hear what ordinary Canadians say about inflation. Talking to many small businesses in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, I am hearing that they are having to compete to get good workers to come back to work. They are competing with each other, which of course is a good thing, but they feel they are also competing with the federal government. They are being told that maybe they need to pay their employees more if they want them to come back to work. That to them sounds like wage inflation.

I have talked to young families, and there are many of them in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, who are struggling to buy a house. There is a housing affordability crisis going on. That is not unique to my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, although British Columbia's Lower Mainland seems to be ground zero for this housing affordability crisis.

I ask members to consider a hypothetical family that 15 months ago, at the start of the pandemic, decided it would take one more year to save up for a down payment to buy a first home. Today, that family is somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 further behind. The goalposts have just been moved further. No matter how hard families kick the ball, and no matter how well they play the game, they are not keeping up. They are losing ground. If we tell them there is no inflation, they are not going to believe us.

I have talked to contractors who are working in construction in the housing industry. If we tell them there is no inflation, they will tell us about increased prices for lumber, plywood, steel, concrete and any products related to construction. The prices are going up. If we tell them there is no inflation, they are not going to believe us.

I believe there is one thing we can agree on with the Liberals, and with the other people in this House, and that is that the solution to fight inflation is to grow the economy and to make sure the economy is producing goods and services in sufficient quantities to meet the demand of the buying public. That is the solution. Unfortunately, this budget does not do that. It misses the mark.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of the Liberal spending in this budget will not stimulate jobs. Nor will it create economic growth. This is a budget that focuses on redistribution of wealth, borrowing money and quantitative easing, but does not encourage private investment.

We have heard on numerous occasions from members opposite that even during the Harper years, Conservative governments engaged in deficit spending. Of course, in a time of crisis, that is exactly what a central government needs to do. It has tools available to it. Debt financing, quantitative easing, tax incentives to encourage further investment and even printing money are all tools available to and must be employed by a central government during a time of economic crisis to ensure there is liquidity in the marketplace. We all agree on that. Where we disagree is when the central government needs to step on the gas and when to ease up, when to pump liquidity into the marketplace and when to step aside to let private enterprise take over.

Do not forget that the Liberal government, even during good times, the first four years of its mandate, did not balance the budget. There was full employment, good government revenues and economic growth, yet there was one deficit budget after the other. I do not think Canadians have confidence in the government to see us through this crisis. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great track record of managing Canada's economy during a time of economic crisis, the most recent being the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 when Canada came out stronger than any other G7 country.

Today's Conservatives stand ready, willing and able to take the lead again to do the hard work to get our economy back on track. The Liberals focus on Ottawa-centric policies; we focus on private investment.

Talking about government-centred programs, I will focus briefly on the latest iteration of the $10-a-day universal child care proposal that has been put forward in the budget once again, as it has been put forward many times over many years. I will quote from a recent study report by Cardus, a think tank. This is what it says about the national child care proposal, “The norms of modern work, particularly that of modern working mothers, will be poorly addressed by a nation-wide system, rooted as it is in proposals that were first advanced in the 1970s.”

If there is one thing we learned about Canada and Canadians during this COVID crisis, it is that they are resilient, creative, inventive and engage in entrepreneurial problem-solving. A lot of Canadian families have taken the opportunity during this COVID crisis to move out of urban centres into more suburban centres to get a bigger house for the kids, a bigger home office, maybe two home offices, one for mom, one for dad and maybe even a third one for the kids if they do their school work from home. We should ask these families what they think about a centralized Ottawa-knows-best national child care policy. We should ask them what they want.

I have a few suggestions, three good ideas, that I hope the Liberals will accept. First, they should take the billions of dollars that they are planning to spend on national child care and give it directly to families and allow them to do what they feel is best. Second, let us create more housing by encouraging provincial governments and municipalities to increase supply. Rather than tinker with demand, let us increase supply. Finally, they should do something about rural broadband so we can all work efficiently from home.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join all of my colleagues in the House, albeit virtually from my riding in Edmonton Strathcona.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-30 and the budget that the Liberal government has brought forward. I will begin by talking about the things that I support and was happy to see within the budget.

I was delighted to see that child care was included in the budget. The NDP has been calling for a national child care strategy for decades. It was wonderful to see that the Liberals have finally listened to us. They did not just listen to us: People within the Royal Bank, chambers of commerce across the country, child care advocates and representatives from provincial governments have called for a national child care plan. They recognized that if we did not have child care put in place, and if we did not deal with child care in a meaningful way there would be no recovery for so many working families across the country, and there would be a very stunted recovery, particularly impacting women, leading to what has been dubbed the “she-cession”. We were happy to see child care included.

Of course, I have concerns that this may be a promise and may not be something that is actually done. We have seen the government make promises before and not follow through with actions, so my colleagues within the NDP and I will be keeping a close eye on this to make sure that it is not just a campaign promise for the Liberal government but actually something it will implement.

I am also a little worried that the government has not done the work that needs to be done in terms of making sure that the provincial governments are going to take the need for child care seriously and implement it. As members know, I come from Alberta. In Alberta right now, Jason Kenney has already said that he has concerns about implementing a child care program. I know that women and working families in my province desperately need that support. This is something I will certainly be keeping my eye on as we go forward.

Obviously, we were also very happy to see the establishment of a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour. We heard, in 2015, Justin Trudeau openly criticize a proposal that the NDP had put forward, so it is good to see that this is a part of the budget, and we were very happy about that.

However, I will also talk a little about some of the shortcomings of Bill C-30 and the budget. I will focus my comments today on the impacts that Bill C-30 and the federal 2021 budget have had on my riding of Edmonton Strathcona.

As members may know, Edmonton Strathcona is an incredible riding. It is the heart of Edmonton. Downtown may be the brain of our city, but Edmonton Strathcona is the heart. It is the heart of the arts community, and is where so many of the small businesses and restaurants in Edmonton operate. It is home to all of the best festivals: the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, the Fringe Festival, Heritage Day and a number of other wonderful events. It is also where many of the post-secondary institutions in Alberta are located. The University of Alberta's Campus Saint-Jean, King's University and the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology Souch Campus are all located in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona.

When I look at this budget, I am looking at what some of it looks like for my constituents, and I will start with post-secondary education.

As I mentioned, Edmonton Strathcona is home to many post-secondary institutions, and many students, professors and parents live in the riding. They are very concerned that post-secondary education is becoming inaccessible. It is too expensive and becoming something that only the elite and wealthy can access.

I spoke with students from the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, Mia and Suzanne, who are deeply worried about post-secondary education in Alberta. They are worried about whether students will be able to afford to attend university and what it means when only the wealthy can attend. They are deeply concerned that students will graduate with mountains of debt that will impact their ability to buy a home, start a family or begin their career.

In November 2020, I brought forward a motion calling on the government to immediately implement a moratorium on student loan repayments. The House voted unanimously in support of that motion, yet nothing happened. There was no moratorium put in place. Students were still expected to pay back their student loans in the middle of the pandemic and in the middle of what we know has been a devastating time for young students and recent graduates.

We know that 58% of young people have felt the negative impacts of the pandemic on their fiscal situations. Instead of letting students fall into debt, we have called on the government to help by reducing their debt. We have called on the government to eliminate up to $20,000 per student. The Don't Forget Students group and the Canadian Federation of Students called on the government to do more for students. The fact that this budget has not done enough for post-secondary students and for recent post-secondary graduates is a big problem for me. It is a big problem for my constituency and for students across the country.

There is another thing that we really wanted to see within this bill and I am very disappointed that we do not see it, particularly as we are in the middle of a global pandemic. This bill does nothing to give us any of the supports that we need during a global pandemic. There is nothing here for pharmacare, dental care or additional support for mental health care.

Canadians have been waiting for pharmacare for over 60 years. It would make sure that the medications they need would be included in our health care system. Twenty-three years ago, the Liberals first promised Canadians a national pharmacare program. They have repeated that promise over and over again, yet we still have not seen it. In fact, recently the Liberal Party voted against the NDP's proposal for a pharmacare bill and, of course, there is nothing in this budget that makes us feel like it is coming.

We have had five public commissions on pharmacare. We have had study after study, including the Liberals' own Hoskins report in 2019, say that Canadians needed pharmacare, that pharmacare would save money and that we have that obligation, particularly during a global pandemic. Unfortunately, that is not part of what we saw in this bill.

While we were happy to see that there was a small increase in the amount of OAS for seniors over 75, it was deeply concerning that it would not help all seniors. It is a pittance, and not enough for seniors to get out of poverty and survive this pandemic. We saw massive amounts of money go to support for-profit long-term care centres. Instead of giving the money to our seniors to help them, we have seen the money go to the wealthy.

I said that I would be speaking about what the impacts have been on my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, but I want to very quickly talk about international development, humanitarian assistance and where this budget falls on that front.

A report prepared by Cooperation Canada, which is a leader in civil society work on international development, stated:

COVID-19 is not a fleeting crisis. It calls for political leadership and strategic investments to make up for the 25 years of human development progress lost in the first 25 weeks of the global pandemic.

It also says this budget missed that opportunity. Groups that provide humanitarian aid around the world asked for 1% within this budget, and they did not get that support.

Members may say that pharmacare, child care, support for seniors, artistic communities and our international communities all cost money, and wonder where is it going to come from. That is the biggest problem with this bill in my mind. We did not take the opportunity to make sure that the wealthy paid their fair share. We did not take the opportunity with this budget to make sure that the ultrarich would be contributing to our communities and our Canadian priorities. We have seen CEOs use the wage subsidy program to lock out their workers in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona. We have seen the ultrarich make $78 billion over the course of this pandemic, yet there is no wealth tax. There is nothing that will make the wealthy pay their share and help us as we go forward.

While I am happy to see that the Liberal government is finally taking some steps on a national child care program, and while I am happy to see minimum wage raised to $15 I am disappointed, once again, that the wealthy are given a free ticket while regular Canadians are expected to pick up the tab.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the course of the debate on Bill C-30, there have been many points of view shared. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have justifiably raised concerns about the deficits and levels of debt the current government is accumulating, and the impact this debt will have on Canadians for generations to come. They have skilfully illustrated that, despite the Minister of Finance's description of her budget as a plan for jobs, growth and resilience, it falls dreadfully short of a real plan for economic growth that will create jobs for Canadians.

One of my colleagues has sounded the alarm about the impact of the government's inflation-inducing borrowing and spending plan and the real impacts this has on the daily lives of Canadians, whether they are trying to buy a home or pay for groceries. Of course, we cannot ignore the vast body of evidence confirming that the current government has proven itself very skilled at convincing Canadians of their grand promises of action on priorities like rural Internet, infrastructure spending and housing. The lack of meaningful results is, at worst, a betrayal of the Canadians who trusted this Prime Minister; or, at best, the vacuous panderings of an individual whose life experiences prepared him only for being famous.

While all of these issues are important and have yet to be addressed by the government, I intend to focus my comments particularly on what would appear to be the centrepiece of this budget for the Minister of Finance: a national child care program. There can be no doubt that access to affordable child care and early childhood education is a wise investment in our economy and can help ensure all Canadians are able to realize their full potential in the workforce. Personally, I believe a system designed to respect the choices of parents in the best child care options for them makes more sense than a massive government program, which, by the way, would cost $30 billion over the next five years, then roughly $9 billion annually thereafter. This proposal highlights yet another example of the federal government making a commitment in an area of provincial jurisdiction without the corresponding commitment of dollars needed to fund a program that most provinces simply cannot afford.

Here is a brief history, that I am sure all of us know. One of the primary reasons for Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick federating to form the Dominion of Canada in 1867 was the desire to fund the transcontinental rail link and to build a common market that would spur economic opportunities for the provinces and lessen the impact of any adverse economic policies of the United States. The new federal government was also designed to stabilize public credit. That was one of the first items of business in 1867 when the new Dominion of Canada assumed $72.1 million of the $88.6 million of existing provincial debt.

The British North America Act assigned the big expenses of settling, building and defending this new country to the federal government, and the provincial governments were responsible for, at the time, the less expensive services like education, hospitals and municipal institutions. Despite this original design, immediately after Confederation, the provinces had spending commitments higher than their revenue. This led to the creation of the dominion subsidy from the federal government, which was calculated at 80¢ per capita and, including other transfers in support of specific legislation, cost the federal treasury about $2.8 million or over 16% of total federal spending. This country was born into debt and the national government was established, in part, to manage that debt.

Now, fast-forward through those early nation-building years of World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, all eras where the federal government borrowed heavily to grow the economy, win a war, save the economy and win another war. Following the end of World War II, the economy expanded exponentially as did the level of government intervention in the daily lives of Canadians. New programs were introduced by the federal government, including unemployment insurance in 1940, the family allowance in 1945, old age security in 1952, the Canada pension plan in 1965 and the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. During this period, the dominion subsidy program evolved into the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in 1957, which was due in part to the federal government's desire to promise nationwide health and social programs, all made possible because of a 50% cost-sharing commitment from the federal government.

By the 1970s, the federal government had established an outrageously complex cost-sharing system with the provinces to partner in the costs for expanded health services, education and income security programs. All of this and a program of equalization payments to poorer provinces was funded by debt, which was funded by an exponentially growing economy. Then, 1973 hit and an already-slowing economy and increasing inflation were compounded by a quadrupling of oil prices. Government debt grew faster than ever, without the corresponding economic growth to pay for it.

Interest rates skyrocketed, unemployment soared and Canada was in trouble. While tax reform in the eighties, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and significant deregulation of key sectors of the economy certainly helped spur economic growth, by the 1990s Canada was in a fiscal crisis with growing debt-servicing costs and an economy not growing fast enough to pay for it. Between 1995 and 1997, the Chrétien government was forced to cut spending to save Canada's finances. In that time period, the government cut direct program spending by almost 10%, but it cut provincial transfers by 22%.

While the fiscal imbalance in our Confederation existed from the very beginning, federal expansion and intervention in provincial jurisdictions exacerbated that imbalance. While the federal government failed to ever really fully meet those original commitments made to provinces, the debt crisis culminated in the 1990s with the federal government solving its debt problems by abandoning the provinces and also the municipalities. By 2007, with federal finances back under control, a new formula for provincial transfers was established that increased transfers, but not nearly enough to meet the demands on provincial services that the federal government helped create and agreed to pay half the cost of.

In the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent fiscal sustainability report, he noted, “subnational governments will face ever-increasing health care costs”. He also continued to say, “For the subnational government sector as a whole, current fiscal policy is not sustainable over the long term. We estimate that permanent tax increases or spending reductions amounting to 0.8 per cent of GDP...would be required to stabilize the consolidated subnational...net debt-to-GDP ratio at its current level of 25.7 per cent of GDP”.

In his report on budget 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer cautioned that the government's $100-billion stimulus spending could be miscalibrated, meaning that based on the current recovery it is not likely necessary, while he cautioned that the government's plan to continue borrowing could exhaust its fiscal flexibility in the medium to long term.

We have provincial governments, many of which are drowning in debt and a federal government borrowing and spending wastefully, all while advocating its responsibility to fully fund its share of provincial programs like health care, and now the federal government offers to add a new child care program to the provincial balance sheets with a promise to cover half the costs.

How could the premiers ever trust the government to live up to this latest promise, when the broken promises of the past are threatening the financial future of almost every province in the country? Clearly, German philosopher Georg Hegel was correct when he wrote, “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”

This budget is a buffet of spending, paid for with massive debts and designed to perpetuate the government's promises of being all things to all people. The government is not only ignoring the financial struggles of the provinces, struggles created in part by federal interference; budget 2021 seeks to push the provinces even further into debt.

We need a real plan that manages public debt and invests strategically to stimulate real economic growth that will create jobs. We need a plan that will restore fiscal balance to our Confederation. Restoring that balance will better prepare the federal treasury to manage the impending fiscal problems, grow our economy and build a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. The budget reflects the unprecedented times we are living in.

My constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges, all Canadians and billions of people around the world have had their lives turned upside down for more than a year by COVID-19. Many people have lost loved ones. Schools, day cares and businesses have had to close. Families have been affected by temporary and long-term layoffs.

The magnitude of this situation cannot be underestimated. This is the worst health and economic crisis that Canada and all of humanity have experienced in generations. Our Liberal government had to present a budget that reflected this reality, and budget 2021 does just that.

This is an important budget focused on three key goals: finishing the fight against COVID-19 and continuing to support families and businesses during the pandemic; investing in the economic recovery and in economic growth in the short and long terms; and, lastly, looking ahead by investing in building a cleaner, safer, stronger and more prosperous Canada for our children and grandchildren.

With respect to our investments to finish the fight against COVID-19, I will start by speaking about investments in vaccines, more specifically our domestic vaccine production capacity in the future.

COVID-19 highlighted the importance of rebuilding Canada's vaccine production capacity, which was lost over the past 40 years. Budget 2021 provides a total of $2.2 billion over seven years to re-establish a vibrant domestic life sciences sector. This amount includes a previously announced investment of $170 million for the expansion of a vaccine production facility in Montreal. These and upcoming investments will equip Canada to produce COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines that Canadians may need to combat future biological threats.

As we continue to navigate through the highs and lows of this pandemic, many sectors of our economy are still closed or operating at reduced capacity due to provincial health measures. As a result, many of my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges are either out of work or are facing a reduction in income.

To ensure that they continue to put food on the table and support themselves and their families, budget 2021 extends the COVID-19 economic response support measures for individuals by another 12 weeks to September 2021. This includes the Canada recovery benefit, which will reduce gradually over time; the Canada recovery caregiving benefit; the Canada recovery sickness benefit; and it allows for more flexible access to EI benefits for another year, into the fall of 2022. This ensures that those in my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who are still heavily impacted by this pandemic, including our artists, restaurant owners, tourism operators, those working in the aviation sector and many more, will have the support they need to see it through.

We have also extended benefits for small business owners. Budget 2021 ensures that the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which has helped more than 5.3 million Canadians, will be extended until September 25, 2021.

The Canada emergency rent subsidy, which has already helped more than 154,000 organizations, will be extended from June to September 25, 2021.

Canada emergency business account loans, which have helped more than 850,000 Canadian small businesses, are still repayable by December 31, 2022, but the application deadline has been extended to June 30, 2021.

To help businesses reopen, budget 2021 includes several new programs, such as the Canada recovery hiring program, which offsets a portion of the extra costs employers take on as they reopen.

The objective is to help employers that continue to experience declines in revenues relative to before the pandemic. The program will be available for employees from June 6 to November 20, 2021.

Budget 2021 also includes an expansion of a worker support program that I know will have positive impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the years ahead who may find themselves diagnosed with an illness that will require them to take time off work, and that is the extension of employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. During my personal battle with cancer, I know how important it is during and after chemotherapy to focus on one's well-being, on one's mental health and on healing.

Budget 2021 proposes funding of $3 billion over five years to deliver on our promise in 2019 to extend these benefits by almost three months. This extension would provide approximately 169,000 Canadians every year with additional time and flexibility to recover and return to work.

The extension of the support programs for families, workers and business owners to September 2021 is vital to the health and safety of many families and businesses in Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

We promised all Canadians that we would be there for them during the pandemic, and that is what we are doing with budget 2021.

We also promised seniors that we would be there to help them. Since 2016, our government has worked hard to do just that. We have already increased support for 900,000 of the most vulnerable seniors across Canada, made historic investments in affordable housing, and invested billions of dollars in mental health care.

In budget 2021, we are continuing on that track by offering a one-time payment of $500 for seniors aged 75 and over in August 2021, as well as a 10% increase in old age security payments starting in July 2022 for seniors aged 75 and over.

We also invested over $3 billion to improve long-term care and $3.8 billion to build an additional 35,000 affordable housing units for Canadian seniors.

For young Canadians who are anxious about their future job prospects in the coming months and years, budget 2021 provides the support they need to build skills, get on-the-job training and start their careers. This includes $721 million to connect Canadian youth with employers that will provide them with over 100,000 new quality job opportunities and a historic $4 billion in a digital adoption program to help 160,000 businesses make the shift to e-commerce, which will create 28,000 new jobs for young Canadians.

It provides $708 million over five years to ensure that we have 85,000 work-integrated learning placements and $470 million to establish a new apprentice service that would help over 55,000 first-year apprentices in construction and manufacturing Red Seal trades.

Finally, it provides an additional $371 million in new funding for the Canada summer jobs program in 2022 and 2023 to support approximately 75,000 new placements in the summer of 2022 alone.

Further, to respond to the mental health impacts of this pandemic, as part of an overall investment of $1 billion in the mental health of Canadians, budget 2021 proposes to provide $100 million over three years to support innovative mental health programs for populations disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, including health care workers, front-line workers, youth, seniors, indigenous Canadians and racialized Black Canadians.

Finally, budget 2021 includes unprecedented investments in the protection and preservation of nature and action against climate change. To enable Canada to reach the ambitious goal of protecting 25% of our nature by 2025, budget 2021 invests $4 billion for small and large-scale conservation projects and $3.16 billion to plant two billion trees across Canada by 2030. To help Canada not only meet but exceed our Paris agreement targets, budget 2021 invests $8 billion in the net-zero accelerator supporting green technology and renewable energy and creating well-paying jobs in the process.

It also invests $1.5 billion to purchase 5,000 electric public transit and school buses, helping to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, provide cleaner air and reduce noise pollution in our communities. In addition, to help communities like mine in Vaudreuil—Soulanges that have already begun to experience the impacts of climate change with two record floods in just the last four years, budget 2021 will strengthen climate resiliency by allocating $640 million to the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund for small-scale projects between $1 million and $20 million in eligible infrastructure costs. For communities like mine, with smaller municipalities, this change is going to make all the difference.

With that, I strongly encourage every member of the House to support the measures proposed in budget 2021 and in Bill C-30. These measures will allow us to—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, which implements certain provisions of budget 2021.

As everyone knows, it is a mammoth and extremely dense bill that contains a wide range of measures. We unreservedly support some of these measures, which we would like to see implemented even if we vote against the budget.

This part of the bill seeks to extend COVID-19 assistance programs, which although not perfect are nevertheless essential, until September. These include the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy. Many businesses that have suffered badly over the past year rely on those programs. Considering how important predictability is in business, of course we are pleased that entrepreneurs will have a clear idea of the programs available to them over the coming months. However, the amounts allocated will decrease gradually throughout the extension period.

However, there is one little thing worth noting. The bill gives the Minister of Finance the power to extend the programs until November 30, 2021, through regulation, without having to go through the legislative process. I believe I am right in thinking and safe in saying that this measure is an insurance policy in case the House is dissolved for a fall election, which would prevent it from enacting a law that would extend the wage subsidy beyond September 27, 2021. I will let my colleagues read between the lines to determine when the government expects the House to resume.

We are particularly pleased that, instead of paying taxes in the year that they received a government assistance cheque and getting a credit in the year that they reimburse the amount, as is currently the case, under Bill C-30, taxpayers will not have to pay taxes on any government assistance that they reimbursed. Those who have just completed their 2020 income tax return could end up paying taxes on the amounts they received through the Canada emergency response benefit. However, even if the government asked them to pay back those amounts, under Bill C-30, any reimbursements made this year make the cheques received last year tax-free.

Another piece of good news is the creation of a hiring subsidy program, which will be in effect from June 6 to November 20, 2021. That program is offered to businesses restarting their activities and hiring or rehiring employees. I am also pleased that taxes will finally be imposed on Internet products and services and Airbnb rentals, which will put an end to the unfair competition that we have strongly criticized.

I would also note the new Canada-wide child care program, even though it is part of a general trend of interference and federal centralization. Fortunately, there is mention of a possible asymmetrical agreement with Quebec and the federal budget statement repeatedly touts the child care system. However, there needs to be assurances that this agreement will translate into full compensation with no strings attached for Quebec for its share of the total cost of the program. Since this federal government likes to interfere in matters that are not under its jurisdiction, I would like to note that family policy and related programs are exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Bill C-30 provides for a one-time payment of just over $130 million to the Government of Quebec to harmonize the Quebec parental insurance plan with the Employment Insurance Act. 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.

However, Bill C-30 also lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime, which the Bloc Québécois and Quebec strongly oppose. This bill provides for a significant increase to the budget of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office, so it is not a stretch to conclude that Ottawa wants to strip Quebec of its financial sector. I remind members that the office was created in 2009, and its purpose is to create a single pan-Canadian securities regulator in Toronto. Bill C-30 authorizes the government to make payments to the transition office in an aggregate amount not exceeding $119.5 million, or any greater amount that may be specified in an appropriation act.

Although the Supreme Court ruled on a number of occasions that securities were not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa finally got the green light in 2018 to interfere in this jurisdiction provided that it co-operate with the provinces and not act unilaterally. History has taught us to be cautious in such situations.

This plan to create a national securities regulator in Toronto is bound to result in regulatory activities transitioning out of Quebec. I will note that the unanimity we have seen in opposition to this bill in Quebec is rather remarkable. All political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, business communities, the financial sector and labour-sponsored funds are against this bill. The list of those who have vehemently expressed their opposition to this initiative includes the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Center, the Desjardins Group and Fonds de solidarité FTQ, as well as most Quebec businesses such as Air Transat, Transcontinental, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale and Molson.

This plan is just bad and must never see the light of day. Contrary to what members opposite are saying, this is more than just a dispute over jurisdictions or a new conflict between the federal government and the provinces. This is quite simply a battle between Bay Street and Quebec. It is an attack on our efforts to keep head offices in the province and preserve our businesses.

Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables access to capital markets for businesses. A strong Quebec securities regulator is essential for the development and vitality of the financial sector. In Quebec, the financial sector accounts for 150,000 jobs and contributes $20 billion to the GDP. That is equivalent to 6.3%. Montreal is the 13th largest financial centre in the world.

A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses. It is a well-known fact that businesses concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their head offices are located. This new attack on Quebec's jurisdictions risks having us go the route of the branch plant economy, to the detriment of Ontario.

This potential exodus of head offices could have serious consequences on every level of our economy, since Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies in Quebec rely more on globalized supply chains. Just imagine the impact that can have on our network of SMEs, particularly in the regions. As we have seen during the pandemic, globalized supply chains are fragile and make us very dependent on other countries. We will not stop fighting against this plan to centralize the financial sector in Toronto.

We will also keep calling out the government for ignoring the demands of the Quebec National Assembly and the provinces and refusing to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. As we know, the government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons, since a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to substantially and permanently increase federal transfers to the provinces was adopted in December 2020.

The government could well have taken advantage of the fact that the deficit announced in budget 2021 was lower than expected, by $28 billion, which is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. With massive spending on the horizon, it is clear that by refusing to increase transfers, the government is making a political choice, not a budgetary choice, to the detriment of everyone's health.

It was a long time coming, but Bill C-30 finally includes the increase to old age security that this government promised during the 2019 election campaign. However, the increase will amount to only $766 per year, or $63.80 per month, and will apply only to seniors aged 75 and over. The increase will not begin until 2022 and is insufficient for seniors and for the Bloc Québécois.

In closing, we will vote in favour of the bill, because we do not want to deprive seniors aged 75 and over of this cheque. We do not want to deprive businesses and workers of the assistance programs they are counting on, but we will continue to fight to ensure that all sectors of Quebec society receive their fair share in a fairer budget in the future.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

It's really shocking to learn that, when you want to support a charity, you end up subsidizing Visa and MasterCard at the same time. I hope that this will be taken into account in the Minister of Finance's legislation.

The minister announced such a measure in her budget, but it is not in Bill C-30. In the budget, she states that it will be included in next fall's economic statement.

But it is no secret that the government is likely to call an election in August.

Would you have preferred to see such legislation introduced in Bill C-30, which we are discussing today?

[Jean-Guy Côté, Chief Executive Officer, Conseil québécois du commerce de détail]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jean-Guy Côté, and I am the chief executive officer of the Conseil québécois du commerce de détail (CQCD).

First, I would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to appear today. This will allow me to present some of the vision and analysis of Quebec retailers on Bill C-30 and on the budget tabled a month ago.

As you may know, the Conseil québécois du commerce de détail is an organization that represents the majority of Quebec retailers. The CQCD is Quebec's leading retail industry association. The CQCD's mission is to represent, promote and enhance this sector and to develop resources to foster advancement for its members.

Given the limited time available for my presentation, I will focus on only a few points.

As you know, the past 14 months have been challenging for retailers. The pandemic has accelerated a number of transformations already under way in the industry, including the shift to e-commerce. In some sectors, such as fashion, retailers have closed up shop and jobs have been lost.

The various programs announced by the federal and provincial governments as well as by the municipalities have addressed some of the needs of retail entrepreneurs. The speed with which they were implemented is to be commended, although we believe they should have been adapted as early as the fall of 2020.

The federal budget extends the duration of various programs, including wage support, income support and rent support that were put in place during the pandemic. These programs will be phased out over the summer. While the recovery, confirmed by the very positive retail sales figures from Statistics Canada this morning, appears to be well under way, some retail sectors are still very much affected by the revenue losses incurred during the pandemic. We hope that the phase-out of the various measures will be monitored and that government support measures will be provided again at the first sign of further economic stress.

This brings me to my main topic, interchange fees. These are fees charged to retailers by large credit card companies on all in-store and online credit card transactions. These fees are sometimes very high and are used to fund, in part, the credit card companies' generous rewards programs. As a result, all in-store and online credit card transactions are subject to an additional charge, usually paid by the retailer.

Canada has the unfortunate but justified reputation for having some of the highest interchange fees. In 2019, research conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the FED, showed that Canada was among the top countries for interchange fees. Interchange fees typically hover around 1.4% per transaction. In comparison, Australia has reduced its interchange fee to less than 1%, but the example to follow is the European Union, which has capped it at 0.5%.

The significant expansion of e-commerce in recent months has led to a sustained use of credit cards to pay for purchases. This practice will not disappear, but it needs to be controlled. Such control would be welcomed by the retail industry, but more importantly it would be a gesture of fairness. The credit cards with most rewards are often supported by the revenues from regular credit cards of those with fewer financial means. In addition, charities are regularly charged interchange fees on donation transactions. A cap would have no impact on the federal government's finances, but it would be welcome for the finances of the retailers.

We are pleased to see that the budget opens the door to a consultation on introducing concrete measures in the budget update. This was an election promise made by the current government. We are ready and willing to work together to propose innovative and positive solutions for retailers.

Our request is simple: cap interchange fees at 0.5%, as the European Union has done, and eliminate fees charged on the GST or other taxes on transactions.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their welcome today, and I look forward to their questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will reconvene the meeting.

Just for the purposes of the record, welcome to meeting number 49 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the second panel of the day.

We are meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.

Just for the information of witnesses, we are operating in a hybrid format, and under this system only people who are speaking will show on the website system of the House of Commons, which is made public.

With that, we will turn to the witnesses. Our first witness is the Conseil québécois du commerce de détail. Mr. Jean-Guy Côté is the chief executive officer.

Jean-Guy, if you could hold your remarks to about five minutes, or thereabouts, it would be helpful.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I should signal that after my questioning of the witnesses I'm going to have to step out for a few minutes. My second round of two and a half minutes could go to Mr. Ste-Marie or Ms. May.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for coming forward. It was very interesting testimony, of course. We hope that you and your families are staying safe and healthy during this pandemic.

I'd like to start with you, Ms. MacNaughton.

Thank you so much for sharing your story and David's story with us. It certainly resonates. There is no doubt, as you've heard from a number of members of the committee, that your story is heartfelt, and I think we all understand the importance of that.

You have talked about the 26 weeks, and you've said that we should go beyond that. There will be an amendment coming up next week to this budget implementation act that would actually take the sickness leave to one year, a full year of supports for Canadians who are experiencing what you and David experienced.

How would you feel about having sick leave extended to a full year? We certainly have the resources in our country to provide those supports for a full year of EI sick leave. Would you support that measure?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 49 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, and the proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that people are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

We will start with BIOTECanada.

Just before we do that, just as a heads-up to committee members, we were having some difficulty in getting extended hours on May 27 to deal with clause-by-clause. That's now been accomplished, so we will be able to meet into the evening of Thursday, May 27 when we're in clause-by-clause to, hopefully, finish Bill C-30 that evening. We'll go from there.

I see that Mr. Barrett is on there. Does he want to do a sound check, Mr. Clerk, before we go to BIOTECanada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Ms. Lloyd, if you have anything to say in that regard, just send it through to the clerk, and he will get it to committee members. We always run out of time.

This is our fourth panel today. I try to keep track of the comments that I think are good and note down the time they happen, and then I'll go back to the transcript. Thank goodness for transcripts. My note paper fills up about every five minutes all day from having over the four panels.

Look, we've had a great series of witnesses. We've had constructive criticism. We've had some praise. It goes all over the map, with good ideas for the future—and not all on Bill C-30, for sure.

I thank members for their endurance during the day.

I thank all the panellists for their great presentations and for taking the time to answer our questions.

With that, we will see committee members again tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Lamonde, I'll ask you the same question. Under Bill C-30, the government will be drastically cutting supports for individuals and businesses, including start-ups, in the next few weeks. How is that going to affect start-up ecosystems in Quebec and other parts of Canada?

[Bob Masterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My apologies; this is the time I was assigned.

I am pleased to be with you on behalf of Canada's chemistry and plastics manufacturers. Combined, they represent nearly an $80 billion-a-year industry in Canada. It's the third-largest manufacturing sector. Most importantly, it serves all of your other important economic sectors, be they mining, forestry, automotive, aerospace, agriculture and agri-food, to name just a few.

With respect to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, we offer three comments for you.

First, our chemistry and plastics sectors have been resilient, and for the most part—albeit it's been a little uneven—companies had already recovered or nearly recovered to pre-COVID levels by the end of 2020. Due to a wide variety of factors that have had the winds at the back of this industry in Canada this year, the sector is showing significant growth through the start of 2021.

Nevertheless, there are many other sectors and that are struggling. We've just heard from Mr. Kelly and others about these sectors and households. Canadian families and businesses have not had the opportunity yet to recover or participate in this recovery, and this budget will play a very important role in providing a supporting floor as the recovery takes hold in these more challenged sectors of the economy.

Second, I think there was a strong message in the budget that the challenge of a circular, net-carbon-zero economy is truly daunting to comprehend. In many areas, this budget does propose substantial early investments, which will send strong signals on the direction businesses and society must go in the coming years and decades.

Third, I do have to point out that those signals alone are not sufficient. Mr. Gill has already talked about this, but achieving a circular and a net-zero economy is going to require a complete recapitalization of the Canadian economy. Government expenditures alone will never be able to get the job done. Though I don't have an exact number for you, if you look at our chemistry sector alone, it will be well in excess of $100 billion, probably over $200 billion, to recapitalize the current industry we have to allow it to transform for a circular and net-zero economy. Only the private sector has the ability to allocate resources at any scale approaching that.

From our perspective, that's where the budget fell short and where we believe more attention is urgently needed. Make no mistake, global supply chains will recapitalize; they will be transformed completely for a net-zero and circular economy. The only question is whether Canada’s industrial and economic sectors will be able to participate or will just continue to be a flyover destination for the much-needed global investment.

As for the experience in our sector, I've talked to you folks about this a number of times. As a case in point, south of the border we've seen $300 billion in new investment in the last seven years. By historical measures, we should have seen $30 billion of that in Canada; we've seen just $7 billion. Yes, COVID has certainly delayed some investment activity south of the border and globally, but some of those trends I talked about are pointing to the sector already looking tight.

I think you can expect to see some global announcements of new investments, including in the United States, in the weeks and months to come. At this point, however, I would have to say that another round of investments is probably not on Canada's radar. We don't believe the budget offered anything to improve the chances of attracting that investment in the near future.

Prior to the next budget, we urge the committee to make further recommendations to underline those you've placed before to focus on improving Canada's investment climate. One of them already discussed is the 100% accelerated capital cost allowance that was introduced in the fall economic statement. Previously, you'll recall that it was a temporary measure. The clock is already running. Companies that had to go on hold for two years because of COVID now can't take advantage of the full allowance that you put in place for them. We'd encourage you to, at a minimum, extend that out to 2030, a full capital-cost cycle. If that's not sufficient, we'd certainly encourage you to make that permanent, like it is south of the border.

Second, please, we have to recycle these carbon revenues back into industrial sectors. We can't take hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars out of the productive economy, send it elsewhere and then expect the same sectors of the industrial economy to somehow magically come up with these hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in recapitalization. It's not going to happen. We have to find a way to get the revenues back to allow for that investment.

Third, and you've heard me say this before, as much as the federal government and provinces have collaborated to the benefit of all Canadians throughout this COVID pandemic, we need equal, shared and collaborative attention to building a sustainable investment climate that will attract global capital and retain Canadian capital in this country so that we have a chance to succeed in this transition to a circular and net-zero economy.

I thank you once again for this opportunity to be with you today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting on the prestudy of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

We welcome witnesses here on the fourth panel of the day to hear their views on Bill C-30. We welcome you all.

Just so witnesses know, when you're speaking, the only person who is seen on the screen is the person who is speaking, not the committee and witnesses as a whole.

With that, we will start with the witnesses, and please try to hold your remarks to about five minutes.

We'll start with Bonjour Startup Montréal and Liette Lamonde, president and CEO.

The floor is yours.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Kucheran or Mr. Strickland. It's about employment insurance and the measures in division 36 of part 4 of Bill C-30.

Earlier today, we heard from Pierre Céré, a representative of the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses. He was worried about the EI amendments, specifically, those that would apply for a one-year period beginning in September in relation to the number of benefit weeks and benefit amount. He called the measures a return to the status quo, referring to them as gaps that could hurt seasonal workers.

I believe some of the occupations you represent involve seasonal work, so I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the EI amendments, especially in response to what Mr. Céré said.

[Michael Villeneuve, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nurses Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting the Canadian Nurses Association to share our perspectives on Bill C-30 and the 2021 federal budget.

I would like to acknowledge that I speak to you today from the ancestral unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishnabe peoples in eastern Ontario. My name is Mike Villeneuve and I am the CEO of the Canadian Nurses Association. I am joined today by my great colleague Aden Hamza, who is our policy lead.

Overall, the Canadian Nurses Association welcomes the important measures outlined in the budget to continue fighting COVID-19, to care for children, to protect older adults, to expand broadband Internet to support virtual care, and to tackle systemic racism. I will focus my remarks on key issues CNA has strongly been advocating throughout the pandemic and on how the budget addresses some of these concerns.

CNA has been calling for a larger national conversation around aging to identify the best models to support safe and dignified aging in Canada. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have all seen, and some have even experienced, the devastating effects of the virus for older adults and the way COVID-19 has put a spotlight on some well-known vulnerabilities in our health care systems.

In our pre-budget submission and advocacy, CNA urged the federal government to lead the development of pan-Canadian standards and to increase funding for long-term care. We're pleased to see a commitment of $3 billion to support provinces and territories in ensuring that standards for long-term care are applied, while respecting jurisdictions.

As referenced in the budget, the Health Standards Organization and Canadian Standards Association are launching a process to develop standards for long-term care. While CNA welcomes this work, of course, we do continue to urge the federal government to take a leadership role and to institute meaningful change by implementing measurable, actionable, and accountable standards to address the shocking outcomes we have seen.

Furthermore, although division 12 of part 4 of Bill C-30 provides an important emergency $4-billion top-up to the Canada health transfer, more funding is needed to meaningfully support the health and social needs of the largest generation of older people in our history. As we shared with this committee during pre-budget consultations, just the aging of our population will drive increases in health care spending by an additional $93 billion over the next decade. New dedicated funding is critical to enhance the ability of provinces and territories to invest in home care, community care, long-term care, palliative care and end-of-life care. That is why CNA continues to call on the government to implement a new demographic top-up to the Canada health transfer.

Finally, as nurses continue to fight COVID-19, CNA was pleased to see that budget 2021 pledged mental health supports dedicated to health care workers who are experiencing trauma due to COVID-19.

More than a year into the pandemic, and with many provinces facing a dangerous third wave this very day, nurses and other health care workers are facing critical fatigue and burnout. We have been hearing stories about nurses, physicians, and others planning to leave the profession, and we have seen major staffing issues in critical care units over the recent weeks across Canada. CNA is extremely concerned about nursing shortages and about how those could impact the health of Canadians going forward. A new health human resources plan led by the federal government will be crucial.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague Aden and I will do our best to answer any questions. Thank you for including us.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you, Robert.

It's a real pleasure to be here today. Thanks very much, members, for the work you do on behalf of your constituents and all Canadians.

We appreciate the opportunity to engage on Bill C-30 and look forward to continued consultation on budget items such as the new apprenticeship service, the community workforce development program and the sectoral workforce solutions program as details get ironed out.

Bill C-30 includes important measures to alleviate some of the financial burden on apprentices as they move through their apprenticeship by absorbing interest accrued from the Canada apprentice loans program until March 2023. We applaud the government for this initiative. We also appreciate the budget's focus on green energy and workforce development, but we recognize there's an opportunity to expand on additional investments as we look beyond the pandemic and getting Canadians back to work.

In the construction sector, this means support for a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction, which is currently on the floor of the House of Commons as a private member's bill, Bill C-275. Unlike many careers, construction work is temporary, in that you build a project, complete the project and then move on to the next one. This can require workers to travel and temporarily relocate for work, with costs that can be too much for a worker and can disincentivize them from travelling to where the work is. This can create labour shortages in different regions, with high unemployment in others. A skilled trades mobility tax deduction would address this problem and transition workers away from utilizing programs like EI so that they instead contribute to the Canadian economy through tax revenues from their employment.

This past March, an independent financial projection commissioned by Canada's Building Trades Unions found that the Canada-wide implementation of a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction would save the treasury an estimated $347 million annually through increased tax revenues and reduced reliance on EI and other government programs. This private member's bill will not receive royal assent, but we encourage the government to adopt this measure. This is very important for helping to rebuild Canada's economy, and it is very important to members of the building trades.

There is a lot in the budget that will help to continue building Canada's skilled trades workforce. However, we need to ensure that funds that have been committed in budget 2021 and previously for infrastructure investment flow out the door, put shovels in the ground and get people back to work, and faster.

On behalf of the over half a million skilled trades professionals who belong to Canada's Building Trades Unions and our 14 affiliated international unions, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to present. I look forward to any questions that you may have for me and Robert.

[Robert Kucheran, Chairman, Executive Board, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

I am. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today on Bill C-30 and the effect the budget will have on the skilled trades workers in Canada.

My name is Robert Kucheran. I am the chair of the Canadian executive board of Canada's Building Trades Unions. The CBTU is an organization composed of 14 international unions, with over 500,000 skilled men and women from coast to coast to coast. I am also the general vice-president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, one of the CBTU's 14 affiliates. Today I'll be sharing my time with the executive director of the CBTU, Sean Strickland.

First off, we are pleased to see the $30 billion allocated for a national child care program in the budget. Access to child care remains an issue for skilled trades workers who don't fit a typical nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday work schedule. A large-scale investment of this kind is important to help working families, and we will continue to work with the government to ensure child care means child care for all workers.

Overall, over 500,000 workers have been laid off or faced cuts to their working hours due to the pandemic, impacts that have been disproportionate among certain segments of the population, including young workers, women and racialized communities. While the construction industry, which accounts for about 6% of Canada's GDP, has been a key player in keeping the economy going this past year, industry employment is down from pre-pandemic levels, with unemployment nationally at about 8% and much higher in certain regions of this country.

The recent extension of programs like the Canada recovery benefit in the budget will help workers through this unprecedented time. Looking to the longer-term, we are pleased to see the reforms in the employment insurance program included in Bill C-30. This has been a high priority for Canada's Building Trades Unions and will better support workers in the long term. Recently we appreciated the opportunity to address the HUMA committee on this issue, specifically on allowing claimants to start receiving EI benefits sooner by simplifying the rules around monies paid on separation, lowering the thresholds for entrance requirements to EI, and, very importantly, extending the EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. This will help all Canadians, including CBTU members who don't have access to paid sick days. We commend the Government of Canada for taking those measures into account in this bill.

Thank you. I will hand my remaining time over to Mr. Sean Strickland.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. This will be our third panel today. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19 of this year and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Just so that witnesses know, the webcast will always show the person who's speaking rather than the entirety of the committee, and we ask that screenshots not be taken.

With that bit of introduction, we will go straight to witnesses. If you could keep your presentations to about five minutes, that would be great, because it will leave a little more time for questions.

We'll start with Canada's Building Trades Unions. We have Mr. Kucheran, chair, and Mr. Strickland, executive director. I'm not sure who's taking the lead, but the floor is yours.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was indeed a very interesting discussion.

My question is for Ms. Tiessen and Ms. MacEwen. It concerns what is known as contract-flipping, which are aimed at subcontractors at airports.

The mechanism works on by tendering. The new company that submits the lowest bid and wins the tender hires the same skilled workers already in place in the position they held, but offers them lower wages and less favourable working conditions.

I'd like to know if any of your members are in this situation.

In Bill C-30, the government intervenes by saying that the new subcontractor will not be able to lower wages, but does not protect all collective agreements.

I'd like to hear your comments about this. Ms. Tiessen could start, then Ms. MacEwen could respond.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

This is very clear, thank you.

The measure that will fix the situation was announced in the budget, but it's not in Bill C-30, which we are considering now. That will only be for next fall.

Do you think it would have been better if this was proposed now? Since retailers have had a terrible, even catastrophic year, the measure would have provided them with immediate relief. Was there no urgency to act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will reconvene and call the meeting to order.

We welcome the second panel of witnesses to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

We are, as you well know, meeting on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures. I should call it the prestudy on Bill C-30, because it hasn't been referred to us as of yet.

With that, welcome, again, to all the witnesses. We will start with the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

If you could keep your remarks roughly to five minutes, we will have more time for questions. We'll start with Ms. MacEwen, senior economist, National Services, CUPE.

Welcome, Angella.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me come back to you, Mr. Céré. You were saying that the blind spots in division 36 of part 4 of Bill C-30 were taking us back to the status quo. Unless I'm mistaken, you mean this would be a return to the Axworthy reform of the 1990s, right?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here and delivering presentations.

Mr. Chair, we just received the document you requested. I appreciate the witness providing it so quickly.

I want to start by clarifying something in connection with what Mr. Fragiskatos and Ms. Masotti were just talking about. Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of the House supported extending EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks. The Bloc Québécois put forward the motion, which was supported by the NDP and the Conservatives but opposed by the Liberals. Unfortunately, it's clear from the budget and Bill C-30 that the government disregarded the will of the House. I just wanted to provide that context.

My questions are for Mr. Céré.

Mr. Céré, thank you for being here and making your presentation. You cited the IMF, which cautioned the government against withdrawing income support programs too quickly. You made clear your concerns about divisions 35 and 36 of part 4 of the bill, in relation to a new iteration of EI, one that will come into force in September for a period of one year, as well as the CRB.

To my knowledge, the minister has the power, by regulation, to extend the CRB until November, but she cannot change the amounts, which would require a change to the act. You, of course recommended that we propose amendments to the bill. We will propose amendments, but they still have to be deemed in order by the chair. We will try to come up with appropriate wording.

I want to follow up on division 36 of part 4, which amends EI. For the one-year period from September 2021 to 2022, you identified two gaps, the variable divisor in calculating the benefit rate and the benefit period.

Could you elaborate on those gaps in the bill and tell us who will be affected?

[Ken Neumann, National Director for Canada, National Office, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks as well to the clerk and the committee staff, the interpreters and the committee members for the opportunity to join you here today.

I am Ken Neumann, the national director for Canada for the United Steelworkers Union. Our union represents more than 825,000 workers in North America, including 225,000 workers in virtually every economic sector and region of Canada. I would like to add our voice to acknowledge the history that was made when Minister Freeland became the first woman to table a budget in Canada. It's well past due.

Another historic piece of this budget is the scope of the need people across Canada are facing. COVID-19 has hit and is still hitting people very hard. As a union, we are focused every day on fighting for our members, fighting to keep them safe and secure in their jobs. We also serve them by fighting to make Canada a stronger, fairer and more equitable place. By raising the bar for everyone, we can keep raising it even higher at the bargaining table. That's the lens we used to look at Bill C-30.

If you forget about pharmacare—because the Liberal government did—this big budget can look as though there is a little something here for almost everyone. That includes some important changes that improve labour standards, stop contract-flipping in airports, provide for a federal minimum wage and increase protection for some pensions. We are very happy to see changes that we were calling for. Of course, we're hopeful to see the promise of child care become a reality.

In between a lot of big spending, the government has failed to get some of the big things right. COVID-19 made major holes in programs such as employment insurance impossible to ignore. The changes that were brought in to fix EI during the pandemic, including creating a federal role in paid sick days, should be made permanent, not cancelled before COVID-19 is even behind us.

The budget barely scratches the surface of making the ultra-wealthy pay their share. While the government is slashing CRB supports by 40% from their CERB levels, they're doing nothing to claw back money from some big corporations that, in bad faith, took money through the wage subsidy program. By not going retroactive, the Liberals are letting big businesses that threw people out of work and handed big bonuses to bosses and shareholders off the hook.

The budget does include some good skills training and retraining programs, but too often it seems that protecting jobs was an afterthought. The government needs to connect the dots when it comes to creating a real industrial and job creation strategy. With a supply chain that brings materials and parts back and forth across the border, there are more workers involved in the auto industry than auto workers. In all the talk about zero-emission vehicles, there is no explicit strategy tied to that supply chain.

Obviously there is a lot of potential in the $15 billion promised for public transit, but where will the materials be sourced? As with other infrastructure announcements and commitments in this budget, there are no requirements to use domestically manufactured materials. There are no sustainability and emissions conditions either.

Knowing where our steel, aluminum and other products are from is crucial to the development of a North American approach to procurement and infrastructure, which is how we get an exemption to the buy America provisions. To that end, we are advocating for a North American “buy clean” strategy, which would prioritize the environmental impact of materials used in construction projects.

A recent buy clean report prepared by Blue Green Canada shows that steel, aluminum, cement and wood products produced here in Canada have some of the lowest carbon emissions in the entire world. This strategic approach would allow Canadians workers to benefit from President Biden's massive infrastructure, environment and jobs investment.

You have a partner with the United Steelworkers in working with the Biden administration to make that strategy a reality. From the carbon border adjustments to improving worker access to Canada’s trade remedy system, we look forward to consultations on border measures that are tied to clear procurement strategies that maintain and create jobs.

Before the budget was tabled, I said that it needed to support everyday people and help make sure that workers have jobs to support their families today and into the future. With some important changes, I believe it can be done. This budget tries in many ways to look like it is doing a lot towards that end.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to be with you today, and George and I look forward to any questions that you may have.

[Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, National Council of Unemployed Workers]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good morning and thank you for inviting me.

The public health crisis we have been in since the spring of 2020 is coupled with an economic crisis, the likes of which we have not known in our lifetimes.

Last year alone, between mid-March and late September 2020—about seven months—nine million people lost their jobs. That is equivalent to 45% of the workforce. Those nine million people received the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, for an average of three months. The CERB was replaced by the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB. At the end of September, the government put the employment insurance, or EI, system back on track, introducing flexible measures that were practically akin to genuine program reforms. The measures are nevertheless temporary.

To gain a clear and unbiased understanding of the country's employment realities, we need only look to the EI numbers. From September 27, 2020 to May 9, 2021, a period of about seven months, 4.1 million EI claims were processed. Currently, 2.3 million people are receiving benefits. In terms of the CRB, if we take the three types of benefits into account, a total of 2.8 million people have received benefits since September 27 of last year.

In a recent study, the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, recommended that Canada “avoid a premature withdrawal of fiscal and monetary support” and highlighted that “the lessons from the crisis represent an excellent opportunity to review the EI system, including its role as an automatic stabilizer.” The IMF was right to say as much.

However, the objectives of the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, are not entirely consistent with the IMF's position. Under division 35 of part 4, the measures to extend the CRB stipulate that, for the last eight weeks, or the new weeks after July 18, 2021, the amount of the benefit will be reduced to $300 a week, and at best, the September 25 cut-off date could be extended to November 20, 2021. Members of the Standing Committee on Finance, if it is within your power, I urge you to propose an amendment to the bill that would standardize the benefit amount at $500.

Division 36 of part 4 deals with EI and is clearly very complex. Some temporary measures will remain in place for a year, so 2021-22, but 2022 will mark a return to the status quo.

We welcome the temporary supports announced by the government, including measures to apply a single eligibility threshold of 420 hours to the entire country, to ensure penalties associated with separation from employment take into account only the most recent separation, to ensure that severance pay no longer has an impact on EI benefits, and to provide seasonal workers in 13 economic regions access to an additional five weeks of benefits.

However, the measures fail to address two areas. The first is the calculation of the benefit rate. The government is reverting to the status quo with a variable divisor determined by the unemployment rate. However, under the temporary measure currently in place, the divisor is 14 weeks. The second is the benefit period. Again, the government is reverting to the status quo with benefit periods that are too short. These gaps could have been avoided had the government renewed the temporary measures establishing the divisor at 14 and provided a universal benefit period of 50 weeks.

As a result of those gaps, the government is not helping regions in the same way. Some will actually be penalized, even though the entire country is feeling the effects of the pandemic.

Lastly, extending the duration of sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks is a historic and meaningful step, but why wait until next year? Why is it not being implemented until August 2022?

The government is delaying its plans to reform the EI system. So be it, but in the meantime, it should put temporary measures in place to provide the support people need. The government needs to act swiftly to close the gaps and remedy the shortcomings. Furthermore, it is imperative that the commission the government appoints to review the program and make recommendations, complete its work within a year, not two years.

Canada is the architect of great achievements on the world stage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is but one. Domestically, health insurance was a triumph for the country. The social safety net is critically important in responding to unemployment and crises, and the government must act accordingly.

On behalf of our organization, I urge the Standing Committee on Finance to bring forward solutions to the serious flaws in divisions 35 and 36 of part 4 of Bill C-30.

[Kelly Masotti]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament.

On behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

My name is Kelly Masotti. I'm the vice-president of advocacy. With me is Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst, and Stephen Piazza, senior manager of advocacy.

In our testimony we would like to emphasize two provisions in Bill C-30 that we strongly support. These are an extension of the employment insurance sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks, as outlined in part 4, division 36, of the bill, and the increase in tobacco taxes, as outlined in part 3 of the bill.

Bill C-30 includes a much-needed commitment to the extension of the employment insurance sickness benefit to support people facing the financial burden that comes with a cancer diagnosis. The proposed extension from 15 to 26 weeks will have a very positive impact on people living with cancer, and we strongly encourage all MPs to support this important change.

When Canadians face cancer, their struggle is not just medical but also financial. In addition to a decrease in income, they also face a rise in expenses, such as for medications, medical travel, parking and home care costs. The stress of this financial burden affects their emotional well-being and therefore their psychosocial needs.

As Canadians live longer and have longer careers, more people are likely to develop an illness while in the workforce. With nearly one in two Canadians expected to develop cancer in their lifetime and more than one million Canadians living with and beyond cancer, there is a critical need to provide additional support.

This extension will have a major impact on the lives of those living with cancer. At 26 weeks, it will align with the compassionate care benefit for caregivers, which was extended in 2016.

National Ipsos polling data found that 88% of Canadians support extending the sickness benefit to 26 weeks, whether funded by employers or out of their own pocket. Similarly, 84% support an extension to 50 weeks.

It is estimated that 77% of sickness benefit claimants who exhaust the 15 weeks do not return to work immediately. About three-quarters of these claimants took at least an additional 26 weeks off work.

For the hundreds of thousands of Canadians living with cancer, financial burden and illness are a day-to-day reality. The issue has only been heightened as a result of COVID, and supports for those with cancer have never been needed more.

I will now turn things over to Rob regarding tobacco taxes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25; therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

So that you're all aware, the program shows the person speaking rather than the full slate of witnesses and committee members. The camera is on only the one who is speaking.

That being said, welcome to all witnesses. I ask that witnesses try to hold their comments to about five minutes. That way, we'll have as much time as possible for questions.

We'll start with the Canadian Cancer Society. We have Kelly Masotti, vice-president, advocacy; Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst; and Stephen Piazza, senior manager.

Who's on? Kelly, is it you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I want to thank all the witnesses on this panel and previous panels today. We had a fairly extensive day with four panels.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your presentations, and for answering our questions on Bill C-30.

I am hearing quite a number of complaints from members about Zoom on their eyes, because we are on Zoom a long time, so if anybody has any magic solutions, whether it's eye drops or something else, let the rest of us know. I see Annie has the eye drops up there, but I know my own eyes are starting to get bothered by the amount of time we're on Zoom.

We'll look for magic solutions coming forward at the next meeting maybe.

With that, thank you to everyone. The meeting is adjourned.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

The situation that you're describing is no laughing matter. I appreciate the information. I understand that it will take more than the current content of Bill C-30 to support your industry, which contributes so much to the economy. Duly noted.

You also spoke about cyclical sectors. For example, you referred to festivals, for which there are tailored measures. The issue with festivals is that they generate most of their annual revenue in one or two weeks, if not in a few weeks. I gather that the support measures for these sectors should be extended until the companies or events generate their normal revenue. Is that right?

That's my last question.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

I now want to talk about the income support measures for businesses in your industry included in Bill C-30. I'm thinking, of course, of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy. In your presentation, you said that the measures included in Bill C-30 were insufficient, given the reality of your industry, which is largely based on seasonal activities and jobs. I gathered that the next step for the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy set out in Bill C-30 was insufficient. Is that what you said?

[Chris Aylward, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Chris Aylward and I'm the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We represent 210,000 workers across Canada, most of whom work in the federal public service, but we also represent workers in the broader public sector and in the private sector.

Bill C-30 covers a lot of ground, as it should. These extraordinary times require extraordinary government intervention. The pandemic exposed many fault lines. Seniors became infected and many died in long-term care facilities because of numerous government policy failures. Low-wage workers, the majority of whom are women, Black, indigenous, Asian, racialized and people with disabilities, have suffered tragically and disproportionately because government policy has failed to address inequities embedded in every one of our systems. Now is the time to correct the mistakes of the past.

We welcome the promise of national standards for long-term care, although we regret that funding will be delayed until 2022. Despite its absence in the legislation, we hope the government will reconsider its efforts to improve long-term care by working to end the public sector pension plan's ownership of Revera Incorporated. Instead, let's put the second-largest Canadian network of for-profit long-term care facilities under public ownership and control. Revera is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, which manages the investments of the pension plans of the federal public service, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the reserve force. PSAC made the call for a change in ownership of Revera as a result of mounting evidence that the incidence of death and illness attributable to COVID-19 is disproportionately large in private, for-profit long-term care facilities.

We are glad to see that workers will continue to see temporary support during the pandemic, but we also need far-reaching permanent improvements in income programs such as employment insurance. A federal minimum wage is a very good thing, but $15 an hour is still a low wage. Workers deserve a budget that creates conditions for decent jobs, paid sick leave and decent pay and benefits in every jurisdiction.

Also, the budget does not deliver the national pharmacare program that the government's own commission recommended. This will undoubtedly continue to create financial hardship and will lead to worse health outcomes for millions of Canadians. Nobody should choose between paying for critical medicine and paying for groceries, or have to skip prescription refills to pay the rent.

The transformative element of budget 2021 is the promise of a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care, backed by $30 billion over the next five years. Bill C-30 authorizes transfers to the provinces and territories of $2.9 billion in 2021-22, to be paid according to terms and conditions set out in bilateral agreements. PSAC started campaigning for federal action of this magnitude 40 years ago. Lowering parents' fees to an average of $10 a day while expanding the number of licensed child care spaces will bring down the obstacles stopping mothers from participating fully in the paid labour force. It will increase the social and economic security of women and will especially help those who now suffer the greatest inequity.

Furthermore, increasing women's access to paid employment will give the economy a huge boost now and in the future. The global pandemic has demonstrated this without question. When child care disappeared during multiple rounds of lockdowns and outbreaks, women were the ones most impacted and forced out of the workforce. The economic loss was immeasurable.

However, to realize these benefits, the federal government must use its $30 billion to negotiate meaningful changes in how child care is delivered. The economy needs a secure supply of publicly funded and managed child care. It should be predominantly not-for-profit or public. The quality must be high, and those who work in child care must be qualified and paid accordingly. The project is ambitious and expensive, but if done right it will pay for itself. We urge you to support it and hold the government to account for building the child care system Canada needs and wants.

Lastly, despite some gaps, we applaud the government's efforts to continue to work at increasing equity for all Canadians. We support the commitment to combatting systemic racism and anti-Black racism, both in the federal public service and across Canada.

We're encouraged by the funding dedicated to ensuring the rights of those living with disabilities, funding in support of the work of the LGBTQ2 secretariat and the development of an action plan, as well as continued funding to address long-standing issues in indigenous communities.

Mr. Chair, thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions.

Thank you.

[Kim G.C. Moody, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Canadian Tax Advisory, Moodys Tax Law LLP]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-30.

As introduced, I'm Kim Moody. I'm a CPA and the CEO of Moodys Tax Law and Moodys Private Client in Calgary, Alberta, although I'm in snowy Edmonton today. I have a long history of serving the Canadian tax profession in a variety of leadership positions, including chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, co-chair of the joint committee on taxation of the Canadian Bar Association and CPA Canada, and chair of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, to name a few.

Given the limited time that we have this afternoon, I'm going to keep my opening remarks rather short and briefly comment on three matters: the size of the projected deficit; the length of the bill, which is 366 pages; and the amount of time it took to produce the federal budget.

Let's start with the projected size of the deficit.

While I'm not an economist, I feel compelled to comment on the size of the projected deficit as projected for the upcoming year. It will be an astounding $155 billion, after a record deficit of roughly $354 billion in the previous year. While proponents of modern monetary theory, MMT, may not have any concerns about such deficits, I think the more rational and reasonable person has issues with the size of the deficits and what the future implications of running such high deficits might be for our country. Count me and 74% of Canadians in the camp of those who are concerned, according to a recent poll conducted by Nanos for The Globe and Mail.

While some argue that current low interest rates make such deficits and lending possible, should inflation and interest rates increase, Canada can expect significant negative implications. In my view, control over the deficit, meaning reducing the size of the deficit, should be an immediate priority so as to reduce risk that future borrowing costs do not compromise essential government services.

Next, let me quickly comment on the length and content of the income tax measures contained in Bill C-30.

Some of the measures have been previously announced, such as the stock option measures, and are consolidated in this large bill. Some of the measures are welcome, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance deduction for certain depreciable capital property. Some of the measures are unwelcome, such as the amendments to the absolutely horrible Canadian journalism tax credit regime. Other measures are technical amendments, such as the amendments to enable the conversion of health and welfare trusts to the employee health and life trust regime. All told, there are 30 income tax measures in the bill, which is not an insignificant number of amendments, and they're all packed into a 366-page document.

With such a massive bill, I query whether any parliamentarian can realistically understand every proposed amendment and intelligently comment, and thus vote, on its contents. In my view, to intelligently understand a bill, such measures should be broken up into bite-sized pieces in order to accommodate proper understanding and passing of laws. Having said that, I do appreciate that the business of government needs to proceed for the benefit of Canadians.

This leads to my third and final comment. March 19, 2019, was the last time, prior to April 19, 2021, that the federal government released a budget. That's a record, as we all know, and our government used COVID as the excuse for not releasing a plan. As I've stated at this committee before, former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said in October 2020, budgets “are fiscal plans. And to say that, ‘because there’s too much uncertainty, we’re going to manage without a plan’, is kind of bizarre.... The reason we have plans is because there is uncertainty.”

I absolutely agree. In this day and age of uncertainty, prudent fiscal budgets and plans are needed. After reading the 700-plus pages in the 2021 budget, it's difficult to see a prudent plan other than massive spending. Canadians deserve more than just a massive spending budget. They expect timely and well-thought-out budgets accompanied by intelligent plans that encompass possible shock factors such as high interest rates and inflation increases.

Never again should Canadians need to wait two-plus years for a budget. In fact, it would be my recommendation to make the timely delivery of a budget a law. Fixed budget days should also be considered.

Finally, as many presenters have told you in the past, this country needs comprehensive tax review and reform. Your committee has recommended this very thing and so has the Senate finance committee. Perhaps there is something to all the smart people who have appeared before this committee. Rather than wading through a 366-page bill with 30 income tax amendments, Canadians expect and demand real and comprehensive change.

Forget the cries for patchwork quilt fixes like those contained in this bill. In my opinion, it is critical for our country's fiscal future to engage in comprehensive tax review and reform. The time could not be better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will reconvene the meeting.

Thank you, Pat Kelly, for chairing the last session.

Welcome to meeting number 46 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We are meeting on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, and we're meeting in the hybrid format.

With that, we will go to our first witness. If you could keep your comments to around five minutes it would leave plenty of time for questions. We'll start with Nancy Wilson, founder and chief executive officer of the Canadian Women's Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. Wilson, you're on. I believe you've been here before as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 46 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person and remotely by using the Zoom application.

The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that taking screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted. Interpretation services are available to all members. Just remember to ensure that your interpretation setting is set to the correct language when you are speaking.

I see that we have at least one guest member today. I want to welcome Mr. Fisher, who is substituting for Mr. Fraser.

With that, I will welcome our witnesses. Today we have Simon Telles, lawyer for Force Jeunesse. We have Susie Grynol, president and chief executive officer of the Hotel Association of Canada. We are expecting Alanna Hnatiw, mayor of Sturgeon County. Hopefully we will be able to connect with her and get her onto the call.

In the meantime, let's get under way and have opening statements from our witnesses. After that, we'll go to questions.

With that, go ahead, Mr. Telles.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start with a comment.

I just want to remind our guests that, in my opinion, all members of the committee agree with increasing interprovincial trade. Just because we did not support the idea of the committee doing a study, does not mean that we are against trade of that kind. In my opinion, the issue is the negotiations that have to take place among the provinces. Canada is a federation. It's a historical compromise. Although we are seeing more and more pressure for everything to be decided in Ottawa, the fact remains that we have various levels of administration and not everything is up to “big daddy” in Ottawa.

For example, in Bill C-30, I especially regret the funding for centralizing securities. That is detrimental to Quebec's economy and to its head offices, because it threatens their financial position. The Bloc Québécois clearly cannot support that idea.

My questions go to Mr. Poloz once more.

Mr. Poloz, the extent of the crisis and the responses by governments and central banks, which have implemented measures all around the world, are enough to make one's head spin. Some plans are unprecedented and they seem to be working. However, the sums involved are really high and I understand perfectly the fears about inflation, or deflation, as you said in a previous life.

We also have to be afraid of bubbles in some sectors, especially real estate. We are therefore looking at all the risks to determine what could happen, given that we are losing our reference points a little.

Which sectors, which risks, could lead to the recession becoming longer, or even to a new recession? I talked about inflation and deflation. We could also talk about exchange rates. You mentioned a K-shaped recovery.

In your opinion, could the sectors that recover more slowly represent a risk in terms of a recession becoming longer, or of a new crisis?

Should we actually be assessing the risks in terms of climate change?

Which risks should we be closely monitoring in order to prevent another crisis or an extension of the one we are currently in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both.

Before I turn to Mr. Ste-Marie, I just want to throw in a question to Ms. Kennedy.

I know you're in the Gros Morne area, Ms. Kennedy. You did mention the wage subsidy, and we had people on the previous panel on the emergency wage subsidy. How important is it to your industry and your area that changes be made to Bill C-30 with regard to the wage subsidy?

Second, I know you're in a national park. What difference does the national park in Gros Morne make to your region?

[Stephen S. Poloz, Special Adviser, Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt LLP]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon to you and to the committee. Thanks for asking me to participate in this study of Bill C-30.

I would offer three points by way of introduction. The first point concerns the context in which we find ourselves. The impact of COVID-19 on people and our economy has been massive. There will be some permanent damage. However, the damage has been mostly limited to sectors that have been shut down. In a typical recession, bad news in one sector usually infects the other sectors through lower confidence. This has not happened this time. I think this is the main reason that the economy has significantly outperformed most forecasts during the past year.

This economic strength has generated a debate around the appropriateness of fiscal stimulus. It has given the government far more fiscal room to manoeuvre than previously expected. However, any major economic trauma will scar the economy. These scars will run deeper the longer it takes for the economy to heal. Scarring manifests itself as a level of national income that would be lower than it otherwise could be—literally forever—and so I therefore subscribe to the view that it makes sense to push the economy harder during the early stages of recovery, because this will encourage business investment and create new economic growth.

My second point concerns fiscal sustainability. A credible fiscal plan in which the level of government debt relative to national income stops rising and debt service costs are manageable meets the minimum—or, we should say, perhaps technical—standard of sustainability. I draw your attention to the table on page 328 of the budget, which shows that these criteria are met. By the way, comparing this table with a similar one from the 2019 budget two years ago demonstrates that this budget does not represent a sharp turn toward big government, as many have said. The planned budgetary expenditure trend line returns to about 15% of national income, just as it was pre-COVID. The budgetary revenue trend line does exactly the same.

There is a legitimate concern that this minimum standard of fiscal sustainability would leave the economy vulnerable to future shocks. Well, that issue is for broader political debate, a debate that I think should acknowledge the challenging fiscal situation in our provinces. When we combine federal and provincial debt together, as we should when considering Canada's future resilience, our fiscal picture is not very different from that of other major economies.

My third point is that there are many ways to build future resilience without government austerity or higher taxes. If we put our minds to it, we can grow out from under our COVID debt burden, just like we grew out from under our World War II debt when I was young. There are many ways in which we could boost our long-term economic growth rate and grow our way out of our indebtedness.

First of all, immigration is Canada's most important economic growth engine, just as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Anything we can do to make that process more efficient will be a good investment in future growth.

Second, a national child care program, as announced, can also help boost labour force growth. I do hope it can be deployed without delay. This is the sort of program that can literally pay for itself. If we can boost the level of national income by a mere 2% in this way, which amounts to $40 billion to $50 billion more national income every year, then $6 billion to $8 billion will automatically land in government coffers, also every year.

Third, as I've argued before in this committee, one of our biggest untapped sources of future economic growth is to harmonize provincial regulations across the country to reduce interprovincial business frictions. This initiative has about twice as much economic growth potential as the child care proposal, and in fact would cost nothing to implement. It seems to me that finding innovative ways to boost economic growth and avoid raising taxes should be at the top of our list, at this most precarious time, at both the federal and provincial levels.

Thank you, Chair.

[David Macdonald, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

I have indeed. Thanks so much for the invitation to come back to speak to you today about Bill C-30 and Budget 2021.

The last time I was at the committee, I presented you with the results of our 2020 child care fee survey in the context of the fall economic update. I was pleased to see those child care figures appear in Budget 2021 as the starting point for the government's ambitious national child care plan.

Parents have two main complaints about child care in Canada. First is that fees are high, and second is that wait lists are long. Targeting a reduction in fees, particularly with quick and substantial reductions by 2022, will have a noticeable impact and make a big difference for parents with young children. However, the expansion of spaces at the same time will be an important corollary to fee reductions to ensure that we don't trade lower fees for longer wait lists. I look forward to specific targets on space increases, as well as reductions in fees.

When it comes to building a recovery from COVID-19, affordable and accessible child care is in a unique position. It certainly supports women as they return to the labour force after they have been harder hit than men during the pandemic due to job loss, but it also provides improved productivity due to higher female labour force participation, thereby driving long-term real GDP growth. Moreover, it pays higher tax dividends than other programs do.

The reduction in child care fees so far has been largely driven through provincial expenditures—certainly in Quebec, but also in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, which all have set fee programs, although at a higher rate than Quebec.

The higher income tax that results from higher female labour force participation goes disproportionately to the federal government, despite the provinces being the ones that support it. This makes the federal government an ideal partner on this file, as it is also the main beneficiary of that increased tax revenue.

Budget 2021 is relatively limited in its focus on new revenue generation. I'm not overly concerned about deficits, but now is the time to start to consider new measures so that they can be properly implemented in the future. In the short term, I would encourage the committee to consider a CEWS clawback for profitable companies. In the initial months of the rollout of the wage subsidy, the barriers to entry fell quickly. The upside was easy access for businesses that needed it to continue to operate. The downside was that businesses might squeak by on the rules, but that the subsidy, in the end, would boost profits.

While the CRA has aggressively pursued CERB recipients, there is no corresponding effort on the business side. Recent media reporting has highlighted publicly traded companies successfully receiving the CEWS all the while declaring substantial profits. I would encourage the committee to consider a CEWS payback regime, whereby companies that received it but also declared profits pay it back.

Given that more support has gone to business than to jobless Canadians during the pandemic, it only makes sense that profitable companies that don't need the wage subsidy send it back to support other recovery efforts.

In the longer term, I would encourage the committee to consider other revenue options. The federal government could build on its closure of the stock option deduction scheduled for July through an examination, for instance, of the capital gains inclusion rate. Given its immense cost, this could provide additional funds for the recovery, as could a more thorough review of tax expenditures given that many of those tax loopholes go to a very small slice of the upper end of the income spectrum.

The proposed digital services tax at 3% of revenue provides a model for how profit-shifting by international corporations can be tackled. The 3% of revenue is a sort of minimum corporate tax for foreign companies, although it could certainly be expanded far beyond digital services, which is its starting point.

It is clear from American disclosure that many multinational companies regularly employ profit-shifting strategies to declare profits in tax havens instead of in the countries where those profits were generated. Examining a minimum corporate tax, possibly based on the 3% revenue rule, would go a long way to avoiding corporate freeloading on Canadian infrastructure done by foreign multinationals, all while levelling the playing field for Canadian companies that do pay those corporate income taxes.

Finally, like the government, I have limited concern about federal deficits and new federal debt. Interest paid on the federal debt has fallen to historic lows when adjusted for GDP. This is true even when one includes the record pandemic deficits and new spending over the next five years. Incredibly, we would have to look to before the First World War to see the federal government paying less to service its debts, adjusted for GDP, compared with today. Those low rates make this an ideal time for the federal government to invest in short-term pandemic economic recovery but also in long-term issues, like much-needed changes to avoid the impact of the climate emergency.

For members concerned about interest rate increases, it's important to remember that those increases would hit all sectors, not just the federal government. Including the pandemic spending, the federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio now sits at roughly 50%. Household debt-to-GDP stands at more than twice that, at 112%. The corporate equivalent is at 130% of GDP.

The debt of these portions of the private sector, household and corporate, have jumped 10 points during the pandemic, so even small changes in the interest rate brought about by, say, the Bank of Canada's increasing the overnight rate would have big impacts on the private sector. The impacts would not only be because they are more leveraged but also because they pay a higher interest rate to start with. In that sense, heavy indebtedness of the private sector will protect the federal government from interest rate increases.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will reconvene the committee.

Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We are continuing our prestudy on the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19.

With that, we'll go to presentations by the witnesses. We'll start with Mr. Macdonald from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Welcome, David. You've been here before.

[Matthew Jelley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Timing is critical. We're one month after the budget, and we don't really know much more about the hiring credit. When I'm doing my calculations, I have to take the most favourable view of how it may work.

With regard to the wage subsidy and the rent subsidy, for businesses like mine that are trying to ramp up.... You know, we've committed to opening our business, at least all of the maintenance expense and that lead-up. We couldn't wait any longer. We had to do that part. However, whether we bring on our next wave of staff.... We're in a holding pattern right now. That means that every business around us is in a holding pattern, and many are struggling to make decisions right now. Therefore, it's critical that we come out and even give some guidance—whether it's for smaller, under 1,000, or for privately held or whatever the distinctions are—that we're going to make some adjustments to Bill C-30, that we're going to make some adjustment to the regulations, and that we're going to be there.

Last year, adjustments came midsummer and in the fall and, in some cases, after periods had already started, and do you know what? Last year, we were all figuring it out. We were opening on a hope and a prayer. However, now we have the hard financials from last year. We know that without this assistance there's no feasible way for us to open, so the sooner we know, the better it is for everybody—the better it is for our employees, the better it is for our communities.

Therefore, I would certainly urge that we get to that discussion of how we can strengthen it, how we can keep it intact, not how we can make it disappear when we're still in a third wave and when we're still below two-dose vaccinations.

[Brian Santos, Chair, Government Relations Committee, Ontario Real Estate Association]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Brian Santos. I'm a broker with Peak Realty in the Waterloo region, about an hour southwest of Toronto. I'm here as the chair of the government relations committee of the Ontario Real Estate Association.

By way of background, OREA is the trade organization that represents Ontario's 80,000 realtors and 37 local real estate boards across the province.

We are here today to speak in support of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, and the measures that will help remove dirty money out of the real estate market, encourage more green energy retrofits and connect more Ontarians with broadband Internet. These measures will help hard-working Canadians and our economy bounce back from COVID-19 and set the stage for future economic growth, job creation and recovery.

I'd like to start by outlining our support for specific measures in Bill C-30.

First, it aims to get dirty money out of the real estate sector. It commits to creating a national beneficial ownership registry, something that OREA has advocated for for quite some time. Money laundering is a multi-billion dollar problem in our housing market and contributes to the crowding out of hard-working families looking to achieve their dream of one day owning a home. Ontario realtors do not want to see a single dollar of dirty money competing against hard-working young families in our housing market. That is why OREA commends the government and its commitment to create a national beneficial ownership registry. A registry will help make it harder for illicit funds to enter the country through the purchase of real estate by removing the anonymity of perpetrators of money-laundering crimes. By giving law enforcement and our government an important tool to keep dirty money out of Canada's housing market, those who are pushing home ownership away from hard-working Canadians can be identified and held accountable.

OREA is also pleased to see the government's plans to help make homes more energy efficient through investment in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation over the next five years. Providing Canadian homeowners with interest-free loans will help them make their homes more energy-efficient by completing home retrofits, such as insulating their home, installing solar panels or replacing old windows and doors. OREA wants to ensure that the housing sector is doing its part in reducing our country's GHG emissions. Encouraging green home renovations will not only reduce the housing sector's contribution to these emissions, but will also help Canadians lower their energy bills, allowing them to put their hard-earned money elsewhere or save for retirement.

The proposed program will also encourage clean growth by establishing an industry for energy-efficient retrofits, generating economic spinoff activity, helping to kick-start the economy and creating new jobs.

Finally, as many Canadians look to move to more rural and smaller communities, having access to reliable high-speed Internet has become more essential than ever. One of the top questions realtors are asked by their clients when looking for a new home is about the quality of the Internet. The commitment to increase broadband investment over six years through the universal broadband fund will support a more rapid rollout of broadband projects in collaboration with the work currently being done in provinces and territories to ensure that every corner of the country is connected. The investment will help Canada reach its goal of having 98% of the country connected through reliable Internet service by 2026. Investing in broadband across the country will help address the infrastructure and competitive gap in our smaller communities. This new investment will ensure that more Canadians will be able to work remotely, creating jobs and reversing outmigration in more rural communities in Canada. In a modern economy where remote work is increasingly more common, especially now with the onset of the pandemic, Canada cannot compete globally if its people and businesses can't access good Internet service.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight other measures within Bill C-30 that OREA was pleased to see included.

The proposed GST new housing rebate will allow homebuyers to recover 36% of the GST paid on the purchase of a new home priced up to $350,000, for a maximum rebate of $6,300. Applying this rebate to lower and middle-income Canadians will make home ownership more accessible and affordable for more Canadians.

Additionally, with the pandemic creating a decrease in demand for retail and office space, expanding the rental, construction and financing initiative will support the conversion of vacant commercial property into new housing. This funding will assist in the development and conversion of commercial property space across Canada into hundreds of units of rental housing.

Last, the support of public transit projects across Canada will bring forward new subway lines, LRTs, electric buses, active transportation infrastructure and improved rural transit. The proposed new permanent funding will provide communities with the opportunity to plan for new transportation projects, which will encourage the creation of greater housing supply and make more desirable places to call home.

As Canada continues to look to get our economy back on track, Ontario realtors believe that housing has the potential to lead the recovery. OREA is pleased to see that Bill C-30 proposes support for the housing sector in a number of ways to help the government's efforts in putting Canada on the path to recovery.

Thank you, Chair and members of your committee, for your time. I am happy to answer your questions, should there be any.

[Toby Sanger, Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness]

Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning members.

There are a lot of positive measures in Bill C-30, and I'd like to commend the government for introducing them. These include the $15-an-hour minimum wage, extension of COVID and EI benefits, funding for child care, funding for infrastructure, funding for health care and much more. We're glad the federal government will finally apply the GST, starting July 1, to imports of digital services, short-term rentals through digital platforms and goods supplied through fulfillment warehouses like Amazon. This is long overdue but still appreciated, and it is one step towards levelling the digital playing field.

For far too long, Canada has given foreign digital giants—some of the largest companies in the world—generous tax preferences at the expense of Canadian companies and producers. This has contributed to hundreds of business closures, thousands of jobs lost and billions in revenue foregone. Since the pandemic began, it has only gotten worse, as sales by companies like Amazon have exploded while main street businesses across Canada have suffered enormously. The government should eliminate the tax deduction for advertising on foreign Internet platforms. This has contributed to billions in advertising flowing to Google and Facebook, and loss to Canadian media outlets.

We're glad to see the government commit to introducing a digital services tax on the revenues of foreign e-commerce giants starting next year, but the proposed tax will only apply to a small number of companies in specific sectors. Because a digital economy can't be ring-fenced, the Canadian government must also support fundamental international corporate tax reforms at the OECD negotiations now taking place, including support for a global minimum corporate tax at 21% or higher, as U.S. President Joe Biden has proposed; treating multinational enterprises as unitary enterprises for tax purposes; and allocating the profit of multinational enterprises among countries using real economic factors, just as we do among provinces in Canada.

We're glad the government has also finally taken some action on restricting a number of corporate tax loopholes and the stock-option deduction loophole. However, we believe the stock-option deduction loophole should be completely closed instead of just partially closed.

This government should also take inspiration from U.S. President Joe Biden, who is planning to eliminate lower tax rates on capital gains for the wealthiest. It's unconscionable that the wealthiest in society pay a lower tax rate on their investment income than ordinary working people pay on their employment income. This is something that wealthy investors, such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gross and Bill Gates agree with eliminating.

Speaking of the wealthy, inequalities of wealth have only gotten worse during the pandemic, with Canada's billionaires increasing their fortunes by about $80 billion over the past year. A mildly progressive wealth tax on fortunes of over $10 million could raise about $20 billion a year. I'm glad that this government has committed to identifying ways to tax extreme wealth in its throne speech, but disappointed that there was nothing about it in the budget. A large majority of Canadians, including Conservative supporters, support having a wealth tax. Even the IMF and OECD both recently called for countries to introduce and expand inheritance and wealth taxes. I hope to see them in a number of different election platforms soon.

Just as Canada's billionaires have become much wealthier during the pandemic, many large corporations have made record profits. The study we released yesterday revealed that 50 of Canada's large corporations made record profits last year, with a number of them also collecting the CEWS wage subsidy and paying low rates of tax. When the CEWS program was first introduced more than a year ago, I was the first to call for much stronger conditions. This would have prevented the type of misuse and wastage of public funds that we've seen with this program. We should now do what we did during the world wars and what the IMF recently suggested and introduce an excess profits tax and pandemic surtaxes on those who have profited excessively during the pandemic, to recover some of those public funds.

We're glad the government is making carbon incentive payments more visible. We've advocated for this for many years. However, the federal carbon pricing framework also needs to be significantly strengthened by ensuring that large emitters pay the full carbon price and by applying carbon tariffs and rebates on imports from and exports to countries without carbon pricing so that Canadian industry and jobs aren't adversely affected. We also need to finally eliminate the federal fossil fuel subsidies. It's long overdue that we end this climate hypocrisy.

Finally, I'd like to commend the finance Minister for committing to introduce a public registry of the real owners of companies. This will help reduce money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal activities.

The federal government should also increase transparency and accountability in other ways, including strengthening whistle-blower protections, and requiring that large multinational corporations publish country-by-country reports of their sales, profits and taxes paid.

Thanks very much, and I look forward to a further discussion and questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format pursuant to the House Order of January 25. On your screen you will see everyone, but the system only shows the person who is speaking. That's the system we're operating under.

With that, we'll go immediately to witnesses. I want to thank everyone for coming, some of whom I know on short notice, as we're trying to pile a lot of witnesses in this week. I would ask if you could keep your remarks to about five minutes. That will give us more time for rounds of questions.

We will start with the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario and Ms. Hannen, executive director.

Andrea, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll recall the meeting to order.

For those on the new panel, this is meeting number 44 of the finance committee. As you know, we're meeting on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19.

First of all, my apologies to witnesses for having you sit in the wings for, probably, an hour of your time, or 45 minutes. We were late starting here. We were trying to finish the other panel.

In any event, all the witnesses here, I believe, are from the Department of Employment and Social Development. We'll deal with part 4, divisions 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36.

I would ask whoever is speaking on each section, to introduce yourself, tell us your position and introduce whatever colleagues may be here to assist you.

We'll start with division 21, which is the Social Security Tribunal, SST. Ms. Pelot, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast shows only the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. We ask that screenshots of the total committee or its witnesses not be taken.

With that, I will go the agenda. We're looking at 10 different departments in this panel. We have 23 witnesses all on video, although Mr. Xavier, I believe, is available via voice. We'll deal with part 4, divisions 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33 and 37.

Rather than me getting into the introduction of all the witnesses, I'd ask that when the spokesperson for each division comes forward, they introduce themselves, their department, their position and any other colleagues they may have with them.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming.

We will start with division 10, which is the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.

Ms. Dwivedi, you may go ahead. Then we will go to questions, as we've done in the previous panels.

[Marie-Hélene Cantin]

Recently, there have been some delays in setting up the panels, especially those that were going to work on resolving softwood lumber disputes. Setting up the panels always takes a while, because the governments involved have to evaluate the availability of members who are on the roster as well as any disclosures of a conflict of interest. Each government has the right to use up to four vetos on candidates nominated by another country, which also generates its fair share of delays.

Nonetheless, as is the case for any tribunal, the parties involved in the dispute continue to file their legal documents within the prescribed timelines. Once the panels are set up, they simply have to organize sittings, analyze information and make a decision. That part happens rather quickly.

The changes proposed in Bill C-30 will not directly impact the time needed by public servants to nominate candidates for Canada. We find that the delays that have happened over the past few years were regrettable. That said, we hope that there will be a return to a more efficient way of organizing panels as per the terms of CUSMA.

[Marie-Hélène Cantin, Senior Economist, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance]

Hello. I am Marie-Hélène Cantin and I am a senior economist with the international trade policy division of the Department of Finance.

The amendments contained in division 20 are technical and administrative clarifications to support Canada's long-standing approach in the selection of candidates for rosters, panels and committees for disputes concerning antidumping and countervailing duties lodged under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or CUSMA, the Canada—United States—Mexico Agreement.

Chapter 19 of NAFTA provided for a dispute resolution mechanism for antidumping and countervailing duties that was used to replace domestic judicial reviews. Chapter 10 of CUSMA leaves this mechanism intact, which was a key objective for Canada in the negotiations. Chapter 19 of NAFTA provides that the responsibility for choosing candidates for rosters, panels and committees is shared between the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Finance.

This shared responsibility was in keeping with the fact that the Minister of Finance is responsible for the antidumping and countervailing duties regime in Canada according to the Special Import Measures Act, as well as the fact that the Minister of International Trade is responsible for defending Canadian interests in American or Mexican investigations into dumping and subsidies.

Bill C-30 proposes changes to the Canada—United States—Mexico Agreement Implementation Act to reestablish the requirement of obtaining the consent of the Minister of Finance when the Minister of International Trade selects candidates for rosters, panels and committees as per the terms of Chapter 10 of CUSMA.

My colleagues from Global Affairs Canada, John Layton and Raahool Watchmaker, are here with me and ready to answer your questions.

[Suzanne Kennedy]

I'm sorry. I can only speak to the measures that are in Bill C-30 today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are reconvening. We'll call the meeting to order.

We're resuming meeting number 43 of the Standing Committee on Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

We've a number of officials from the Department of Finance with us, and we'll be dealing with them in this section on part 4, divisions 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20.

All the officials who are here are with the Department of Finance, and there are quite a number of them. I'll not go through a list of names at this early stage, but I will ask officials, when you start your presentation, if you'd state your name and your position. I believe it would be easier that way.

We will start with division 6 of part 4, changes to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, better known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law.

Who's taking that one on?

Mr. Brown, do I see you smiling? Go ahead. Welcome. Introduce yourself, Justin.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That's fine.

I would like to welcome and thank all the public servants here with us today.

Thank you for your presentation, Ms. O'Brien. My first question is for you.

If I understood correctly, in the consultation document of 2017, the intention was to protect consumers against non-authorized use or errors, except in cases of fraud. In Bill C-30, this idea is rather vaguely expressed in sections 17, 18 and 19, under the concept of “Operational Risk Management and Incident Response”, where they are talking about the provider's risk management framework, which must comply with regulations.

Am I to understand that the protection will be set out in regulations? If so, why wasn't it included in the act?

[Nicolas Moreau]

They can. Basically, there's a process with the Bank of Canada. They need to validate that they are the owner of this account. They need to provide the information that the Bank of Canada will ask for.

That said, it takes a lot of time to make that validation, because the Bank of Canada doesn't have the social insurance number. They also don't have the date of birth of this individual. They need to rely on past transactions in the account. They need to rely also on this individual validating the last time they made a transaction in this account. It takes a lot of time to make the link between the owner and the person who is claiming this account.

The changes to the law that we're requesting in Bill C-30 would really expedite everything. They would force the financial institution to communicate the social insurance number to the Bank of Canada, as well as other information that will really help to make this transfer in the future.

[Nicolas Moreau, Director General, Funds Management Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I'm Nicolas Moreau from the Department of Finance. I'm the director general of the funds management division. I'll take care of division 2 with my colleague Kathleen Wrye from the pensions section.

I'll provide you with a brief overview of the changes that we're requiring here, and I'll be happy to take your questions after.

I will speak in French as there are interpreters.

Sections 140 to 150 of division 2 of part 4 deal with the modernization of the unclaimed amounts program and seeks to bring legislative changes to increase the efficiency of the program and also allow Canadians to recover amounts that they had lost or forgotten.

Unclaimed amounts are assets that were deposited in accounts with federally regulated financial institutions that are inactive for 10 years. After 10 years of inactivity, the assets are transferred to the Bank of Canada, which holds all unclaimed assets that were initially deposited with federally regulated banks and trust or loan companies.

The new clause proposes legislative amendments to improve and expand the unclaimed amounts program. Division 2 of part 4 of Bill C-30 contains amendments to the Bank of Canada Act giving the Bank of Canada the explicit authorization to publish information online about unclaimed assets.

The Pension Benefits Standard Act, 1985 would also be changed in order to provide a legislative framework for federally regulated pension plans. This framework would, under certain conditions, allow balances of unclaimed pensions to be transferred to a designated entity who could request that the balance be paid out.

Lastly, the Bank Act and the Trust Company Act would also be amended in order to expand the definition of unclaimed assets, which would henceforth include foreign currency deposits and assets, and would obligate financial institutions to inform the account holders via electronic means, such as by email, as well as by post, and to contact the Bank of Canada to provide more information, including the date of birth and the social insurance number of the account holder, which would make claim validation easier.

This brings me to the end of my description of division 2 of part 4 of Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The website will show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. We ask folks not to take photographs of the screen, or screenshots.

With that, in this panel we are dealing with part 4, divisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9.

We have eight officials from the Department of Finance: Jean-François Girard, senior director, financial stability and capital markets; Julie Trepanier, director, payments policy, financial systems division; Nicolas Moreau, director general, funds management division; Kathleen Wrye, acting director, pensions policy, financial systems division; Erin O'Brien, director general, financial services division; Manuel Dussault, senior director, financial institutions division; Richard Bilodeau, director general, financial institutions division; and Neil Mackinnon, senior adviser, financial crimes governance and operations.

To the witnesses, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your efforts in this new and somewhat complicated era that we find ourselves in.

We will start with part 4—

[Trevor McGowan, Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Chair.

Owing to the time, and my understanding that a package of summary materials has been provided to the committee, I'll provide a brief overview instead of going through each of the measures in the bill, unless you would like me to do so.

Part 1 of Bill C-30 deals with the Income Tax Act and amendments related to it. It contains measures that were either announced or confirmed in the 2021 federal budget. The confirmed or previously announced measures include some from budget 2019 and some others that had already been announced but were referenced in the budget.

These would include, for example, an increase to the basic personal amount that essentially provides a tax-free amount for Canadians, gradually reduced for higher-income earners; extensions to various COVID-related subsidies, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the rent subsidy; the introduction of a new hiring program; and the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit, a program that provides assistance to lower-income workers.

With that, we would be happy to take any questions you might have on part 1, or provide a more thorough overview, as I said at the opening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Compared with our previous schedule, which had several meetings next week for three hours, we will not meet on Wednesday, May 19. We will meet on Monday for six hours, and then on the 17th, 18th, 20th and 21st.

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Then we will go to witnesses.

We're dealing with Bill C-30, parts 1, 2 and 3.

I'll go through the list of witnesses so that they're on the record, and we'll go from there.

We have Trevor McGowan, director general, tax legislation division, tax policy branch; Dave Beaulne, senior director, tax legislation division; Maude Lavoie, director general, business income tax division; Pierre Leblanc, director general, personal income tax division; Pierre Mercille, director general, sales tax legislation; Phil King, director general, sales tax division; François Beaulieu, expert adviser, sales tax division; Dominic DiFruscio, senior adviser, sales tax division; and Warren Light, expert adviser, sales tax division.

Just to committee members, I know members sent me a list for a regular lineup on questions. What we typically do on the budget implementation act—and if you have a concern about it, raise it—is that, rather than going through the five or six minute rounds, we just take, in order, whoever has questions on whatever division we're dealing with.

In part 1(a), if you have a question, I'll recognize you, and we'll take one supplementary. Then we'll go to the next questioner, and then we'll go to part 1(b).

If there are no problems with that, we will start.

On part 1, I believe it is Mr. Trevor McGowan.

Welcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19 of this year and other measures.

I will forgo the other formalities, because everybody who's on this line has been through this enough times that we don't need to do that.

First of all, let me apologize to all the witnesses who came on time. We were dealing with a subcommittee meeting. I'll now go into the motion that came from it to see where the full committee stands, and then we'll go to witnesses.

As I said to members at the subcommittee, if I have part of this wrong don't be afraid to correct me. The motion that we passed at subcommittee, which we'll look for a vote on at full committee, is this:

That the committee continue its study of Bill C-30, the Budget Implementation Act, by:

1. Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-30 during meetings scheduled the week of May 17, 2021, and that;

a. Members of the Committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-30 to the Clerk of the Committee by no later than Friday, May 14, 2021, at 6 p.m.—

That's a little bit of a change from the motion that's before you.

—and that these lists be distributed to members of the committee as soon as possible;

2. Moving to clause by clause review of Bill C-30 no later than Thursday, May 27, 2021, at 3:30 p.m., and that;

a. amendments be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee in both official languages no later than 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Tuesday, May 25, 2021;

b. the Clerk of the Committee write immediately to each Member....

That's the same. Part (b) is the same on the motion that's before you, and part 3 is the same on the motion before you. We've agreed that the finance committee will do three meetings on tax evasion, following the conclusion of the study on Bill C-30, and following that, the steering committee would meet as soon as possible to plan future business.

That's the motion. Is someone willing to move it? It's moved by Peter Julian.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Clerk, what did I miss?

Émilie Sansfaçon Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It actually looks a lot like my own private member's bill, Bill C-212, which effectively seeks to do the same thing.

It is in the spirit of an amendment that I tried to move to one of the government's most recent bills modifying the Employment Insurance Act for the purposes of the pandemic, where I sought to have the EI sickness benefit extended to 50 weeks. It is in the spirit of a motion that has already passed, not once but twice, in the House of Commons during this Parliament that calls for an extension of the EI sickness benefit to 50 weeks. Frankly, it is high time that this got done.

I have to say I have not found the government's response to this proposal compelling in the least. The previous intervention by the member for Winnipeg North, just two speakers ago, illustrated the inadequacy of the government's response. He talked about EI as a program meant to maintain an attachment to the workforce. That is true, but there already other EI benefits that can extend up to 50 weeks.

It makes no sense at all to say that, because somebody is sick, they should not be able to maintain an attachment to their job and go back to work after an adequate recovery period, and continue to receive some benefit during that whole period. I do not see how sickness is a good way to choose people who would not get the length of benefit that they might otherwise receive under a normal EI stream.

The member then talked about some other general features of EI that have been changed throughout the course of the pandemic, but did not really speak again to the issue of sickness benefits.

The question that the bill really puts to the fore, and rightly so, is for people who are sick, how are we going to do right by them. Even prior to the pandemic, there had been a campaign towards 50 weeks going on for far too long already, with governments that refuse to act and to implement a 50-week EI sickness benefit.

We knew, already, that in terms of typical recovery periods for diseases like cancer, 15 weeks is simply not enough. However, the pandemic has put this question into even sharper relief. COVID-19 has led to the development of a condition that some people are calling long COVID, post-COVID syndrome or COVID long-haulers. These are people who are seriously falling through the cracks.

They are falling through the cracks for a number of reasons. In some cases, it is that they contracted COVID before the robust testing regime was in place, so they do not have a formal diagnosis of COVID. In some cases, their workplace insurance plan for things like short-term disability does not recognize long COVID as a condition, so they cannot get coverage.

One of the programs that has been there for these folks in their time of need and as we learn more about this new condition that is afflicting them is the EI sickness benefit, but that is only for 15 weeks. We heard from people some time ago who were already at the expiration of their EI sick benefits and unable to access any other kind of insurance program.

Without naming names, out of concern for folks' privacy, I do want to read some excerpts of the stories that have been sent to me by people who are struggling with long COVID, who I think really make the case for why it is so important that we make our EI sickness benefit a much longer benefit.

One woman who wrote to me said:

My symptoms started on April 2, 2020. In the weeks and months that followed, I have suffered and continue to suffer with multiple symptoms that affect my ability to function on a daily basis. I used my short-term sick credits available through my employer until October 2020. At that point my long-term disability through a third party insurance company should have started, but my claim was denied. I am currently going through the appeal process, which could take many months. I am receiving EI sick benefits, but when those end I will have no income.

Another woman from Quebec says, “Please help. I got COVID in March 2020. I've been sick since. I'm coughing uncontrollably and because of the cough, I can't resume my job working on the phone or any other job. Even going to the store I get stared at. I just exhausted my EI sickness benefits and I have nothing else available to me. I'll be sick and homeless. Fifteen weeks is just not enough to recover. I want to work but my doctor said that I'll end up being fired because of this cough.”

Another woman writes, “I am emailing on behalf of my 25-year-old child. They contracted COVID-19 at work at the end of May 2020 and have not been able to work since. They were eligible for CERB and received it until the end of September. They have been receiving the EI benefit since then, but are becoming concerned about what will happen if they continue to be unable to work when their benefits run out.”

A woman from Ontario wrote, “My husband and I are both COVID long-haulers and are about to lose our home because of lack of government financial support. As a result of my insurance company denying my long-term disability claim, I've had to rely on employment insurance sickness benefits, but the 15 weeks of benefits to which I'm eligible are almost up and I'll soon find myself without any income whatsoever. Though I filed a lawsuit against my insurer, it could take up to two years for my case to be resolved.”

There are more, I am sorry to say. We have heard from so many people who really had no other resort in the pandemic than the EI sickness benefit. Despite the fact that there have been many changes made to the EI program on a very quick basis throughout the pandemic, as yet no changes have been made.

I know the government committed to extending the benefit to 26 weeks in the campaign, but those have not surfaced in any of the legislative changes over the past year. They finally appear in Bill C-30, but what I cannot understand is why the government would choose to go with only 26 weeks, when we have an excellent bill like the one before us today. We have clearly demonstrated the will of the House of Commons to support a 50-week benefit.

When I tried to amend a previous government bill, Bill C-24, to include a 50-week benefit, one of the arguments, which I did not find compelling, made by folks on the government side was that making changes to the software that undergirds the EI system was very difficult and it was not just a matter of putting in a number of weeks in the system. It is very complicated, according to them.

If this is supposed to be a once-in-a-generation change to the EI sickness benefit, it would be a tragedy if it ended up only being for 26 weeks. Future governments are going to make that same argument that we cannot expand the number of weeks because the software does not support it. If this is the moment to make that change, and the government is clearly signalling a willingness to make that change, even though it was not willing a couple of months ago on Bill C-24, then let us get it right the first time.

There is an expression on job sites that there is never enough time to do the job right the first time, but there is always enough time to redo it three times after. The problem with this is that we are not slapping up a storefront here. People are sick now and their EI sickness benefits have already expired. People with that benefit, on the cusp of expiring, are going to suffer while the government struggles to get this right. The way is clear. The House of Commons has already said categorically that it should be a 50-week benefit. We have had opportunities with amendments that I have moved previously. We have another opportunity with this bill today.

This has already taken too long. Let us get this right the first time and do right by all those people who are out there suffering, either with new conditions like long COVID, or with long-standing conditions who have struggled to get their health needs met during the pandemic because our hospitals have rightly been focused on helping all those whose lives have been jeopardized by COVID-19. Let us ensure that sick Canadians have the financial support they need to get through these challenging times.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-265. I would like to draw a comparison. There is no doubt that there are members on all sides of the House who are very concerned about workers and want to do what we can in order to support them, whether they are currently in the workforce or they find themselves in a situation where they are disabled temporarily or even long term.

Bill C-265 is an attempt to address an issue. Having said that, there are a couple of concerns. One would be in regard to the scope of the legislation. Is it going beyond the scope of what was intended? Bill C-265 recognizes the scope of the EI programs in terms of their objectives, which are quite simple. It is there to help keep workers connected to the labour force.

Members will find that a majority of the workers who end up taking leave beyond 26 weeks do not return to work. In many ways, we need to look at other programs. The government recognizes the need to support Canadian workers who find themselves out of the labour market, either long term or permanently due to disability, and does this through the program that Canadians will be very familiar with, the Canada pension plan disability benefits. The EI program really is not meant to provide that avenue of coverage.

There are concerns regarding the bill we have before us. I would ask members to take a look at what is being proposed by the government, particularly through Bill C-30. The minister has done an excellent job in understanding the importance of making changes to benefit workers in Canada. We have seen that through some temporary measures that have taken place because of the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, we made sickness benefits a priority.

We introduced a number of temporary changes to the EI program in order to support Canadians during this difficult time over the last number of months. Some of those temporary measures were to facilitate access and increase the generosity of EI benefits, including EI sickness benefits, just to cite a few of them. This allowed Canadians to qualify for EI with only 120 insurable hours. I think that was a very well-received initiative by the government.

There was a need, and the government responded by implementing a minimum benefit rate of $500 a week. This particular change had a very positive impact, much like we had through the CERB program with that minimum amount of money. We saw how Canadians benefited in all regions of the country. I thought it was very encouraging when we heard there would be a minimum benefit rate, which was established at $500 per week.

There were also temporary measures to provide access to up to 50 weeks of regular benefits and the freezing of the EI premium rate at the 2020 rate for two years. I see those as very strong, positive actions that were necessary. The minister and the civil servants responded quite quickly in terms of making sure that injured and disabled workers were being seriously looked at and supported during the pandemic.

Bill C-30 has some things within it that I would recommend the House seriously look at. There are many reasons to support Bill C-30: After all, it is our budget bill and a wide variety of things affect so many Canadians. I would encourage members to support this legislation.

There are some specifics about workers. For example, budget 2021 contains commitments to modernize the EI program for the 21st century. It announces consultations on future long-term reforms to EI. Many times, we have seen private members' bills, resolutions and a wide spectrum of other types of debates hit the floor of the House of Commons that talk about EI and how important the program is, and how important it is that we look at ways in which we can make modifications to it that benefit workers.

For years in opposition, I wanted to see some changes to it. With the 2015 election results and the change in government, I was very happy that, for the first time, I had some sense that the government was going to be acting on worker-related legislation that would be more favourable to workers. Many of my Liberal colleagues have wanted to see changes to EI. The announcement of extending or allowing for consultations on future long-term reforms will do us and the people of Canada quite well into the future because of the spectrum of issues we face today. They were not necessarily prioritized in previous years. Extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks is a component of that reform.

Budget 2021 is a more balanced approach than the private member's bill that we have before us today. I would encourage members to look at it. In particular, we are seeing the extension of EI sickness benefits. They are a very important component of any reform.

I highlighted some other areas. When we think of sickness benefits, what are they and what do they currently provide? Sickness benefits provide short-term income support and help maintain workers' labour market attachment while they are temporarily unable to work due to a short-term illness, injury or quarantine, which is most appropriate at this time.

The EI sickness benefit would provide up to 15 weeks of temporary income support at an amount equal to 55% of an individual's average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum weekly amount. The commitment to increase EI sickness benefits in budget 2021 would also increase the maximum number of sickness benefit weeks available, from 15 to 26. If passed, the bill would provide $3 billion over five years starting in 2021-22 and an ongoing $967 million per year to do just that.

This extension would take effect in the summer of 2022. I would encourage members to look at the benefits to the workers in the budget that the Minister of Finance has brought forward and support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you. I think everybody is of the same opinion.

Thank you very much, folks. You're released.

Turning to committee members, Sean has sent a motion through the clerk, but I'll just make this statement. We have eight meetings lined up, starting in the week of the 17th. We have eight meetings lined up based on the earlier subcommittee agreement and motion.

On the motion that Sean has put out, whether we deal with it or not, we certainly need to make a decision on witness deadlines. The motion is saying that it's noon on Thursday, May 13. With eight meetings, we're going to need a lot of witnesses. We will have officials here and we'll get the chance to question them again.

The clerk will need time. What makes it more complicated, as well, is that the clerk has to try to send out these headsets so that the translation can work. That's one quite serious problem.

The motion doesn't mention farming this out to other committees. I've talked to other committees. In the system, there just isn't time available. The only committee that has time booked on the so-called break week is HUMA. There are 10 divisions in the budget implementation act that apply to them, if we want to farm that out to them.

We have to make some decisions on whether we want to deal with the motion as is or leave it to the next meeting. I don't know, but we definitely have to do something on a deadline on witnesses and priority lists in order to be ready to roll next week, because it's going to be a busy week.

I'll wait until I get participants up here on my Zoom screen. I'm not sure who was the first in.

We have Peter Julian, Pat Kelly and Sean Fraser.

Go ahead, Peter.

[Evelyn Dancey]

I was pausing to see if my colleague, Mr. Marsland, wanted to reply as well, but perhaps we can share in our response if we have different things to say.

There are actually new or enhanced program announcements for Budget 2021 that will be available to new businesses or those that have been launched since the beginning of the pandemic.

With respect to my area at Finance of economic development, there is the Canada digital adoption program to support the acquisition of technology to help the digitization of business. There is the expansion of the Canada small business financing program, which includes a number of elements that are included in Bill C-30 for further detail, but both expands the range of assets that can be financed as well as the different types of financing available.

There also has been an expansion of the government's suite of entrepreneurship measures for women entrepreneurs, Black entrepreneurs, and other equity-deserving entrepreneurs.

[Andrew Marsland]

With respect to the first question, I think it's important to understand what the proposed digital services tax is about and what it's not about. It's not about taxing consumption in Canada. As you know, Bill C-30 includes measures to require the collection of GST by non-residents who are providing certain services.

What the proposed digital services tax is about in a corporate taxation context is making sure that where value is created in Canada, it's subject to tax. The value that's created—which is novel in the digital environment—is essentially the monetization of user data, meaning the data we all provide when we participate in social media, search engines, and so on. That data is often monetized and that value is created in Canada, and it's appropriate that it be taxed.

That's what it's about. There is no exclusion for any particular enterprise. There is a scope proposed for the tax, and that scope would not normally include the sale per se of goods or services. It may include situations where there is data harvested through that activity. That may be within the scope of the proposed tax.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

If you happen to come across more specific information, it would be appreciated if you could send it to the committee. Thank you again.

I want to follow up on something I was asking the minister about.

I'm referring to division 8 of part 4 of Bill C-30, which enacts the Retail Payment Activities Act. Can you confirm for me that nothing in the act will make it possible for Amazon, Walmart or other tech giants to provide services currently offered by financial institutions?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the chamber today to speak to Bill C-30, the Liberals' budget implementation act. It has been more than two years since the government has tabled a budget, and the expectations of Canadians were high. With all the platitudes, like “build back better”, the government had increased expectation and set the stage for something that we were led to believe would be momentous. Unfortunately, the Liberals once again fell back to their default setting of over-promising, overspending and underachieving. Plain and simple, this budget is a letdown for the hard-working Albertans in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe.

It is reasonable that a number of essential COVID-19 support programs that many Canadians rely on are being extended. This is only fair considering they are necessary because of the failings and mismanagement of the pandemic by the Liberals in the first place. However, while Americans are able to attend stadium sport events and mass gatherings because of a successful vaccination and therapeutic drug strategy, Albertans have just been placed under the most stringent public health measures so far. The Liberals' failure to procure an adequate number of vaccines is devastating, not only to those who will undoubtedly get COVID, but to all Canadians who are being forced to sacrifice more for longer than our friends and families in other countries.

The budget completely fails to lay the road map for how the Liberals plan to get out of the pandemic and get back to life as we once knew it. That is job number one right now, and it was missed entirely in this budget. It is clear that the Liberals have no plan to get back to normal. Instead, they came up with creative solutions to try and mask their failure by trying to compare Canada's first-dose vaccination rate, with our four-month gap between doses, with those of our G20 partners, which are following the manufacturers' instructions on timelines for administering the second dose. Maybe that should not be surprising. After all, this is a government that is well practised at spin, starting with its ethically challenged Prime Minister.

The Liberals' failure to prevent variants of concern from entering Canada and their failure in acquiring vaccines are not just health related. The longer it takes for us to begin the post-COVID recovery, the further we will fall behind.

While the Liberals may be spending money like it grows on trees, which is easy to do when one is printing money to offset spending, the reality is that only the private sector can lead us out of the pandemic, and private sector investment is going to flow to the jurisdictions that welcome it. Unfortunately, with so much uncertainty about when we will be on the other side of the pandemic and with a budget that does nothing meaningful to cut red tape or improve the business climate in this country, Canada is not and will not be prepared for the necessary private sector investments.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has made it clear that the government sees the current quagmire of misery that Canadians are living in as a window of political opportunity. This budget shows us exactly what kind of opportunity the Liberals are seeking: an opportunity to shore up their political fortunes for re-election. This budget is full of unnecessary, unproductive spending and electioneering that the government is trying to disguise as stimulus.

The Minister of Finance promised that they would spend up to $100 billion in stimulus, but only if it was necessary. With many economists speaking out and telling us that stimulus spending of that magnitude was not necessary, I was hopeful that the Liberals would pull in the reins on their spending spree. However, when it comes to the government, the devil is always in the details.

We know that the full $100 billion has been allocated even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that a significant portion of it is not actually stimulus at all. I guess no one told the Minister of Finance that if she does not need the whole $100 billion in stimulus, she should not spend it, because it is borrowed money. It certainly does not mean the government should spend the rest supporting political or ideological goals instead of economic ones.

The Prime Minister is set to rack up more debt than every prime minister preceding him. The real issue is that the Liberal government does not even seem to see this as a problem. Time after time we see the government brag about the size of the investment instead of the quality of the return on the investment. That is the problem when a government is all talk and no substance. The Liberals value the press releases more than the result reports, and they clearly plan to continue this trend with budget 2021.

The Liberals promised that they were going to build back better. Well, for central Albertans, this is a plan that will ensure that we build back poorer, as sectors of the economy that Albertans rely on have been largely ignored in this budget, if not outright attacked.

Small businesses that are a critical part of our economy and our communities have been let down. While some much-needed pandemic relief programs were extended and loans remain on offer to those able to shoulder even more government-forced debt, the lack of certainty is crippling. Last year, 60,000 small businesses failed and another nearly 200,000 are in danger of closing now. Small businesses in the tourism sector have been especially devastated.

A single mom in my riding who has been a self-employed travel agent for 30 years recently had to go out and start looking for a new career. This is in large part because the government did not ensure any safeguards for small, independent business people when they were dealing with the airlines. Their commissions are now being clawed back by airlines for services rendered months or even years ago.

In 2020, countless community events were cancelled because of COVID-19, events that our communities rely on to bring in tourists. Many of these community events are once again faced with a fast-approaching deadline to decide what 2021 is going to look like for their events and their businesses.

My riding is home to the Ponoka Stampede, Canada's largest seven-day rodeo. Losing an event like the Ponoka Stampede is not just a loss for the competitors or spectators. It is a loss to the community and surrounding areas, which would otherwise benefit from the event. The estimated economic impact for the local area is $150 million every year. That is a lot of money anywhere, but especially in a rural community like Ponoka with a population of just 7,200 people.

We are getting to a point where organizers need to make these tough decisions again, but the government has not given them the certainty they need to make them. We can see how that ripples across the community. Just last year in Red Deer, the Black Knight Inn closed its doors after running successfully for nearly 45 years.

Guides and outfitters are another part of the tourism sector that have been left behind by the government. With many businesses getting 90% or more of their clients from the United States or other foreign countries, times have been tough for the industry, causing spinoff problems related to food security for local communities and wildlife management. These businesses have lost nearly all of their clients and have no way or ability to pivot to clients from the domestic market.

The budget implementation act has no mention of the tourism relief fund committed to in the budget, which many of these businesses could certainly use. We would expect that a fund geared toward helping businesses adapt their services to public health measures and start to recover would be implemented right away. While funding for Destination Canada could have been helpful in promoting our world-class hunting and fishing opportunities to other Canadians, the government quietly stopped letting lodges access the fund for this purpose a number of years ago.

The agriculture sector was also essentially forgotten. Throughout the pandemic, it has become routine for the government to point to the original set of business risk management programs, which were in need of a overhaul long before the pandemic, as somehow now a solution to the problem. The proposal to refund a portion of the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for vital activities like grain drying is a pittance of what farmers pay to run them. Hopefully, we can get this corrected through the private member's bill of my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South, which would remove the carbon tax from a broader list of farm fuels. The Liberals, I might add, recently voted against it at second reading.

When it comes to the oil and gas sector, there was literally no support whatsoever. In fact, we can see the next step shaping up in the Prime Minister's plan to phase out the oil and gas sector entirely, through the proposed changes that ensure several types of fossil fuel powered energy equipment are no longer eligible for accelerated capital cost allowance deductions. In other words, the Liberals are driving away investment.

When it comes to Alberta's energy sector, the budget is also ensuring that the modest money that is being committed for carbon capture is not eligible to companies that perform enhanced oil recovery. During past challenging economic times, Canada's energy sector has been able to be an integral and central part of our recovery.

Instead of working to empower our world-class oil and gas sector, which abides by the strictest environmental standards in the world, the government prefers to increase the pace with which they are mothballing this industry. They work to end the Canadian industry and ironically welcome oil from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, which lack our commitment to environmental standards and human rights.

This budget is extremely frustrating to my constituents. A recent survey in Alberta by ThinkHQ Public Affairs suggested central Albertans are more likely to report a negative financial impact from the pandemic. It is about 57% in the place I call home compared with 46% for the provincial average. With these realities, we would think that if the government is going to spend money to stimulate our economy, it would ensure that industries important to local economies in places like central Alberta are included.

I do not know what would matter to the government. It simply does not seem to care about the needs of central Albertans. I look forward to the day when a Conservative government once again takes care of the needs of all Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for his speech.

Bill C-30 increases the envelope for the Canadian Securities Transition Office, which was one of the Harper government's pet projects.

The member spoke at length about SMEs in his speech. In Quebec, SMEs, the financial sector, labour-sponsored funds and political parties are against this bill.

Can the member explain why the parties in power in Ottawa listen to the Bay Street banks more than they do Quebec?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for joining us.

I want to ask the minister the following question. When it comes to fiscal flexibility, the Government of Canada has significantly more capacity than its provincial-territorial and municipal counterparts. This is certainly the case in the area I come from, the Northwest Territories. How will the measures in Bill C-30 help ensure that these other orders of government are able to provide the services and infrastructure that their residents rely on?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all our witnesses for coming here today. That includes the departmental witnesses. We hope your families continue to stay safe and healthy.

Congratulations, Madam Freeland, for shattering that glass ceiling as the first Canadian woman to present a national budget.

Now, the context of that national budget is that Canadians are suffering through an unparalleled crisis. At the same time, we've seen Canadian billionaires increase their wealth by $78 billion. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have not been able to return to work. Yet Bill C-30 slashes, in just a few weeks' time, as the third wave crashes on our shores—the most devastating wave yet—the CRB from $500 a week to $300 a week. At the same time, it does nothing to address the fact that Canadian students are having to pay back student loans during a pandemic.

Will the government accept amendments to ensure that the CRB is not slashed from $500 to $300 in the midst of a pandemic and that students get a debt moratorium so that they are not having to pay back student loans in the middle of this crisis?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for clarifying your intentions as regards division 8. That makes me feel better.

The second issue I want to talk about relates to credit cards.

In the budget, you laid out your intentions to limit interchange fees, or to ensure small businesses are treated more fairly in relation to big merchants, which have the ability to negotiate lower credit card interchange fees. In the budget, you indicated that next steps would be outlined in the fall. Why did you not go ahead and implement the measure through Bill C-30?

I would remind you that a Liberal member, Linda Lapointe, brought forward a private member's bill to address this very issue in a previous parliament. Her bill was delayed twice, before she was appointed to a position within the government. She then had to abandon the bill.

As I see it, action is urgently needed, especially since the pandemic has hurt small businesses and deepened the inequity between small and large businesses. Why, then, did you not bring the measure into force now?

From what I gather, putting it off means it may not be implemented until after the election.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. It's nice to see you.

Let me just start by pointing out, as you have, that the wage subsidy has been providing, and continues to provide, absolutely critical support to Canadian businesses and, crucially, to Canadian workers. More than 5.3 million jobs across the country have thus far been supported by the wage subsidy. In the province where you and I are both members of Parliament, Julie, more than 1.88 million jobs have been supported by the wage subsidy.

As I know members of the committee are aware, the amount of subsidy a company can claim for its employees is based on revenue loss. The more revenue you have lost, the more subsidy you are able to claim. We think that is fair. It is a way of targeting the support to where it is needed the most. Of course, I know that members of the committee are aware that companies can only claim the wage subsidy for employee remuneration.

Bill C-30, which we are discussing today, includes a further—and I think important—condition for publicly listed companies. If we pass this important legislation, the remuneration of top executives in 2021... If it exceeds their remuneration in 2019, their companies will need to pay back the difference to the government, up to the total amount of wage subsidy they received. That is a new condition we're bringing in with Bill C-30, and I hope members will support that.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past year has been challenging for all Canadians. Today it is my honour to represent Brampton South to speak in support of Bill C-30, the budget 2021 implementation act. In budget 2021, the priority is to support Canadians through the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and create more jobs and prosperity for all Canadians across the country.

This budget outlines the many challenges Canadians have faced throughout the past year and recognizes that Canadians need support in order to recover financially from the pandemic. As more people are eligible to get vaccinated, businesses are still in need of support to make it through this third wave of the pandemic. That is why this government is extending business and income support initiatives through to the fall.

I would like to focus on some key areas for my community. During the series of pre-budget consultations, I met with many businesses and many seniors from Brampton, including organizations such as CARP, the International Seniors Club, Young at Heart Seniors and others. With budget 2021, Brampton seniors will not be left behind. Many seniors find it difficult to adjust their financial situation after retirement, especially in the pandemic.

This is why the government is providing a one-time payment of $500 this summer to those aged 75 years and older as of June 2022. It is essential aid for seniors who have been impacted by COVID-19. Old age security benefits will also be increased by 10% for seniors over 75, and will be adjusted annually for inflation. All of these actions proposed in budget 2021 will help our seniors live more independent lives and have a dignified retirement.

One of my constituents, Myrna Adams, who is a member of our local CARP chapter, requested that more action be taken to prevent elder abuse in Canada. I am happy to report to my constituents, and to all Canadians watching, that budget 2021 will provide funding for the Public Health Agency of Canada to design and deliver interventions that prevent family violence, including elder abuse. Budget 2021 was designed with the feedback of many seniors from Brampton and across Canada. This pandemic has shown us just how important it is to protect our loved ones and community members.

Some of the people hardest hit by COVID-19 are women, especially low-income women. More than 16,000 women have left the workforce, while more than 91,000 men have re-entered. In order to recover from this pandemic, we need women in the workforce.

Access to affordable child care has been a top priority in my riding of Brampton South this past year. With school closures and many parents still needing to go to work, finding affordable child care for their children has been a struggle. In urban centres such as Brampton, many young families are struggling with increases in the cost of living, including child care. This is not only a social issue but also an economic problem. If parents are unable to work because they cannot afford care for their children, they lose out on their full potential for contributing to the economy.

Proposed in budget 2021 are supports for parents and more affordable options when it comes to child care. The proposed Canada-wide early learning and child care system will help to ensure that all families, no matter their socio-economic background, have access to child care across the country and will increase women’s participation in the workforce.

Not only do children need access to high quality education and affordable care systems, but so do our youth. When the pandemic hit last year, young Canadians were among the hardest hit demographics, experiencing more job loss than any other age group. The mental well-being of youth has been an issue that my riding has taken very seriously over the past year. Being isolated from their peers, attending online school and experiencing the stress of finding summer jobs have affected young people greatly.

In budget 2021, the federal government is investing $5.7 billion over the next five years to help youth by creating more job opportunities and providing them with the ability to finish and further their education. The government's overwhelming support for young Canadians has been apparent over the last year: $7.4 billion was spent on youth when COVID-19 hit Canada last year to help young Canadians through this difficult time as well as create more opportunities for them to get meaningful work experience while supporting small businesses.

Making education a little more affordable is a pillar of this budget. Waiving interest on student loans for another year is giving students an opportunity to save money and not worry about making additional payments. Summer employment opportunities have been increased, with 75,000 job placements in 2022-23 through the Canada summer jobs program.

In my riding, over 600 young Canadians will be employed through Canada summer jobs and my riding will benefit with over $2.7 million. This will ensure that students are securing job opportunities for the summer and learning important skills and gaining work experience. Students and young Canadians will benefit from the new Canada recovery hiring program. By offering small businesses the ability to hire more people faster, this in turn will help young Canadians looking for summer jobs.

Our government recognizes infrastructure investments create good jobs and build healthy communities. It is the right time to start investing in Canadian communities for the economy to recover from this pandemic.

I know that in the coming years, my community will benefit from some recent infrastructure investments the government has made. This includes over half a million dollars to create a youth hub at the South Fletcher's Sportsplex; upgrading The Rose theatre and making it more accessible, with a grant of over $2 million; $35 million in safe restart funding to support the city of Brampton; a grant of $38 million for flood mitigation that will allow us to protect and transform our downtown Brampton and build the city’s transformative Riverwalk project; more transit funding like we saw last summer, where the federal government invested millions of dollars to upgrade Brampton’s transit system; and the largest federal housing investment ever made in Peel Region of $276 million, which will create 2,200 much needed affordable housing units.

These are just some of the most recent investments from our federal government. I know there is more coming in the budget and Bramptonians look forward to seeing their fair share of investments.

Finally, I would like to thank the government for using the budget to recognize that 2021 is the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin in Canada, with a commitment to establish a national framework for diabetes. Members of the House know I have long advocated for this to help the 11 million Canadians living with diabetes and pre-diabetes. With a focused strategy, we can help them all and perhaps find our way to a cure.

Brampton is a community of essential workers. Many of my constituents work in health care, manufacturing, food processing, distribution, transportation and other essential industries. I extend my thanks to all of them for the hard work they have continued to do over the last year. Throughout the pandemic, they had to continue going to work to keep our supply chain running so the rest of us could stay safe.

I thank all essential workers in Brampton and across Canada who have had to work in essential roles. The Government of Canada has their backs. This bill is essential to restarting the economy and ensuring that no Canadian is left behind. Since the start of the pandemic, it has been this government’s priority to protect the health and safety of all Canadians, help businesses endure COVID-19 restrictions and ensure we have a plan in place for a strong economic recovery. This bill would do just that.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will leave it to you to introduce the officials later on, but let me say thank you very much to the officials for being with us.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today about Bill C-30, Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1.

After more than 14 months of uncertainty and challenges, Canadians are continuing to fight COVID-19, but we know there is light at the end of the tunnel. As we fight the third wave, more and more Canadians are getting vaccinated.

Bill C-30 is an essential piece of legislation that, once enacted, will allow us to implement our plan to finish the fight against COVID, create jobs and a swift recovery from the COVID recession and lay a foundation for robust, inclusive, green, long-term economic growth.

This budget is about helping middle-class Canadians, helping workers and helping more Canadians to join the middle class. It is about embracing this moment of global transformation to a greener, cleaner economy. It is a plan that will help Canadians and Canadian businesses heal the wounds of COVID and come roaring back.

First, we need to finish the fight against this virus. This bill includes a one-time payment of $4 billion to the provinces and territories to support their health care systems, support that is so essential as we fight the third wave. This is in addition to the $1 billion to support the provinces and territories as they ramp up their vaccine campaigns.

We are making progress in our vaccination efforts, and I know that team Canada can vaccinate even more Canadians even more quickly, and we will. I was vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine at a Toronto pharmacy 15 days ago, and I encourage all Canadians to get vaccinated as soon as it is their turn.

The pandemic has caused a recession, so we need to start by rolling out a comprehensive plan for jobs and growth, to address the disproportionate impact the recession has had on women, young people, racialized Canadians, low-wage workers and small business.

A cornerstone of our plan is a historic investment of $30 billion over five years, reaching $9.2 billion annually, in permanent investments to provide high-quality, affordable and accessible early learning and child care across Canada. Our goal is that within five years, families everywhere in Canada should have access to high-quality child care for an average of $10 a day. Dear colleagues from all political parties, let's make a commitment together today to all Canadians. Let's get this done.

I want to take a moment to recognize Quebec's leadership, especially that of feminist Quebeckers, who have led the way for the rest of Canada.

While we know better days are ahead, many families are still struggling. Around a million Canadians either remain out of work or are working significantly fewer hours than they were pre-pandemic. We must support hard-hit Canadians and businesses across the country so they can recover as soon as possible.

Bill C-30 includes emergency supports for Canadian workers, businesses and families.

The legislation extends the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy, and lockdown support through to September 25, 2021 which will help protect millions of jobs.

With this legislation, we are providing a bridge for people who are unable to work because of COVID by extending income supports, maintaining flexible access to EI benefits, and extending the EI sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks.

Bill C-30 also introduces a $15 an hour federal minimum wage. It expands the Canada workers benefit, extending income top-ups to about a million more low wage workers, and lifting nearly 100,000 Canadians out of poverty. These are measurable concrete steps to help Canadians who need help.

We must also help small business, the backbone of our economy and every main street in the country. To do that, we need to improve access to capital and help businesses hire more workers, in particular, through the new Canada recovery hiring program.

Young Canadians have made tremendous sacrifices this past year to protect their elders, and now, they need our collective support.

Through Bill C-30, we will make college and university more accessible and affordable by extending the waiver of interest accrual on federal student loans until March 2023. This will mean savings for more than 1.5 million Canadians repaying student loans. We will not let young Canadians become a lost generation.

Mr. Chair, I have spoken today about just a few of the measures included in Bill C-30, measures which will make a tangible positive difference in the lives of millions of Canadians.

This is a plan for jobs, growth and the middle class. It is a plan built around helping Canadians recover, succeed and thrive.

I recognize the critical role parliamentary committees play in scrutinizing government legislation, and I'm grateful to all of you for your hard work.

Bill C-30 is a historic first step towards recovery and new economic growth for future generations of Canadians.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you have as you study this critically important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

We're fortunate today to have with us the Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, and quite a number of officials from the department. We'll introduce those officials in the second round.

Madam Minister, welcome. We'll start with an opening statement from you. If you could hold it to not much more than five minutes, that would be helpful. That way we can get to questions faster.

For MPs, the question lineup after the minister completes her remarks is Mr. Fast, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian.

The floor is yours, Minister. Welcome, green grass and all.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech with a single line: Mr. Speaker, I told you so.

I mean no disrespect, but about a month ago, in mid-April, I said that I would not be surprised if Bill C-14 would not go through the other place by the time we got our hands on this 2021-22 budget. Obviously, I was right. To make it even better, Bill C-14 has not been returned to us and it has been a month since I made that prediction. However, I am not here to speak to Bill C-14.

I am here to speak to another bill. It would spend a lot of money. It would massively increase our national debt and it would not do a whole lot to help Canadians. I am going to be speaking to Bill C-30 because, like I said, this budget would spend a lot of money: $154.7 billion. Even if Bill Gates were to liquidate his entire net worth, that still would not be enough to cover the bill for this. I want to talk about all of this money.

If my colleagues here would think back to last year, when this finance minister started her current portfolio, she was very eager to bring Canada's fiscal firepower to bear if September's throne speech is to be believed. However, there is a bit of a problem with that. This is not Hollywood. We can run out of ammo. Our barrels can overheat. We need some way to not burn through all this firepower too fast or, in other terms, we need some sort of fiscal anchor.

Why do we need a fiscal anchor? Fiscal anchors serve as notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes: one, retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets, like credit access and favourable rates; two, establishing a positive investment climate for businesses; and, three, providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government. If the finance minister does not have one, it becomes very difficult for her to put any sort of constraints on her colleagues in cabinet and caucus, and ensure that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

Before COVID-19, the current government's fiscal anchor was to decrease the debt-to-GDP ratio. That anchor has disappeared. Now the budget has one, a vague, pretty useless one. Great, they are committed to reducing the debt, but the fiscal anchor is supposed to be a prudent, specific debt target, not “we will lower it over the medium term”. Fiscal anchors need to be a target that people can use to hold the government to account with no vague statements.

It is clear that this budget does not have a fiscal anchor. It is clear that this is just written in there to hide the Liberals' lack of future planning. What kinds of fiscal anchors could the government have used? I am not talking about that vague, literally, one line that is in the budget.

The first one is the debt-to-GDP ratio. This is what the Liberals would clearly claim they have got right now, but, again, they need targets and accountability, not vague statements and no accountability. A good example would be keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio under 30%. Any of my colleagues here may remember that as Bill Morneau's favourite target. The so-called anchor in the budget says it wants to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, but it does not provide a goal or a target. Therefore, when debt to GDP is at nearly 50%, a reduction is pretty easy to do, but whether the reduction is effective is another matter.

Another anchor the government could be using is something like the deficit-to-GDP ratio. Again, they have a one-off section about this one, simply saying that the government will reduce COVID spending. Great, but what about other spending? This budget introduces a lot of spending, permanent spending, including stuff like made-in-Ottawa child care programs and made-in-Ottawa pharmacare. This is a lot of new permanent program spending, and these are just small drops in the bucket.

The PBO found that the purported growth spending in the budget would only produce a fraction of the government growth that the government said it would. Therefore, the PBO found that with 1% growth on 74,000 jobs, $100 billion would result in over $1 million per job.

If keeping the deficit-to-GDP ratio down is one of this budget’s fiscal anchors, why would the government spend so much money frivolously? In all honesty, had I asked that in question period, I would have received the government's famous non-answer, which is disappointing.

Since we both know that it will not answer, I will tell the House what the real reason is that the federal government wants to spend this avalanche of cash. It is an election budget. That is why there is a lot of growth funding that would not cause growth. There are no productivity measures, and there is nothing to address Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory regime. It is just a lot of money for programs that look good in a nice, red-covered election platform with a big L on the front of it.

What really, deeply worries me is that the government does not seem to care about what all of this purposeless spending will cause. It is not just from this budget, but all of the previous ones too. The government has spent more than all previous prime ministers in the history of Canada combined. At this point, the government is spending so much that our grandkids, if not our great-grandkids, will still be paying it off. It is like taking out a credit card in their names, maxing it out, and leaving it for them to deal with.

As with actual credit cards, the interest rate is critical to this. I know that the minister would say, “Oh, it’s fine, the interest rate is low so we can borrow easily,” a quote from the minister, but again, our national debt is like a credit card. If there is even a one-percentage-point jump in the interest rate, that is another $10 billion per year in debt-servicing costs. Just like with credit cards, the interest can go up if we do not pay down our debts.

What if another massive crisis comes up, and we end up spending another few hundred billion dollars? Our creditors might start wanting us to pay the money back, and it will be tougher for that future government if it needs to borrow money during that crisis.

We also have to consider inflation. What if inflation goes up in the future? Right now, the Bank of Canada has the inflation rate at 2.2%. I know they like it around 2%, but what if the inflation rate keeps increasing? If we keep injecting all this money into the economy, it could cause inflation to spike.

Consider if inflation rose to 5%. Everything would cost more, which is a normal practice, and the value of our currency would drop by 5% year after year. That might not sound like much, but it would add up if it went on like that for a decade.

I am sure all of us who are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s will remember that it was not pretty stuff. Most of us are only a decade or so out from retirement and we will all get good pensions, but not all Canadians will.

My kids are in their early twenties, and I know a lot of our colleagues have kids who are younger than that. Do we really want to leave this fiscal mess in their laps, or in our grandchildren's laps? I know that I do not.

Our legacy should be having rebuilt Canada with a strong, competitive economy that will be there for decades to come, not spending our money for no purpose other than to help the government win an election. We need to spend within our means, not outside of our means, our kids' means and our grandkids' means.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech on Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1, I would like to take a moment to extend my sincere condolences to the friends and family of Serge Bouchard. He was Quebec's favourite anthropologist, and a wonderful communicator and speaker. He was an exceptional man. We learned of his death today. I wanted to express my deepest condolences to his family and tell them that we will miss him dearly.

I rise today to talk about the budget. Bill C-30 is a big omnibus bill with lots of measures. Some are better than others. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-30, and I would now like to look at the positive aspects and then look at what could have been improved. We agree that the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy should be extended to 2026.

There is also the tax deferral on patronage dividends from agricultural co-operatives. I met with Jean-Sébastien Leblanc and Sylvain Brault of the Coop fédérée, which is now called Sollio. They stressed the importance of this measure for co-operatives. We are very pleased that they can take advantage of this measure. It will be good for this great Quebec co-operative.

We will certainly follow rigorously and closely all the measures surrounding tourism, including small and large cultural and special events. They are also major victims of this pandemic and will probably be the last to fully resume their activities.

This brings me to two topics that are really important to me: seniors and sick workers. Starting with seniors, clearly Bill C-30 announced with great fanfare an OAS increase for people aged 75 and over, not right now, not as soon as the bill is passed, but in 2022. Quite frankly, I am not the only one who wonders why only those aged 75 and over, and why in 2022.

FADOQ, which has 550,000 members in Quebec, is the largest seniors' organization in Canada. It wasted no time condemning what is going on. Truthfully and to the point, FADOQ said that the budget's 10% OAS increase for people aged 75 and over creates two classes of seniors: those aged 65 to 74 and those 75 and up. Specifically, the Liberals's proposal is to give seniors 75 and up a raise of $63.80 per month.

For quite some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase of at least $110 per month for all seniors over 65. There is a reason for that. For years, seniors' spending power has been shrinking while costs have been rising. Some seniors were not lucky enough to have a job with a pension or were not able to save much money. Some seniors, more than one might think, have trouble making ends meet.

I worked with seniors my whole professional career. I dedicated my working years to them. I know that, as we speak, there are seniors who cannot afford to buy medication or food. They have a hard time buying services because they are losing their independence. Their independence and their ability to do things depends on an old age security increase.

The president of FADOQ, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, did not mince her words. I met Ms. Tassé-Goodman at the debate on seniors during the last electoral campaign. She is a smart woman.

She said that by increasing old age security exclusively for people age 75 and over, the government was creating two classes of seniors. To avoid this divide, her organization recommended that the 10% increase in old age security be extended to everyone eligible for this benefit, starting at age 65.

The Bloc Québécois advocated for this and asked the government to include it in the budget. We are also calling for it in our platform. We know that Quebec seniors need to increase their spending capacity, because everything costs more.

When seniors realized that the Bloc Québécois understood their situation, as the issue is well documented, some ministers responded immediately through the newspapers. They said that it was not true that the government gave nothing to seniors, that on the contrary, it gave them a lot of money.

However, we know seniors do not have money in their pockets. The government has taken money from a host of programs—three-quarters of which fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces—and given it to seniors. The government is interfering in a whole slew of programs.

A parliamentary secretary even had the nerve to say that the government had given a lot of money to seniors through the new horizons for seniors program. This is definitely a worthwhile and important program for our communities and seniors' clubs that helps seniors, but it does not provide the money they need to pay the rent, utilities and grocery bills every month.

By creating two classes of seniors, the government has really rallied seniors around this cause. This is my third term and I have never received this much correspondence from seniors, who are criticizing this decision. There is an outcry on social media because people do not understand. They are also not satisfied with the answers they are getting.

Organizations such as the Centre d'action bénévole de Beauharnois, the Popote roulante de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, the Club de l'âge d'or de Bellerive and the Club l'âge d'or de Saint-Timothée, which look after seniors and are dedicated to their well-being, all wrote to me asking me to continue speaking out about this situation. This is a major form of discrimination.

We hope that the voices of our seniors will be heard, and that the increase in old age security will be revised so that seniors 65 and over can receive it.

I cannot end my speech without mentioning how disappointed I am and how disappointed all the Émilie Sansfaçons of Quebec and Canada are. The government turned a deaf ear and did not really listen. It amended the Employment Insurance Act by extending the EI sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks. It has been documented that 26 weeks are not enough. On average, people need 41 weeks. Why commit this injustice? Why decide that seriously ill people who are fighting for their lives in the hope of returning to work do not deserve to get the support they need?

During a briefing, the government gave a truly awful answer. They said that essentially EI was there for people who are not sick for a long time and it was not in the spirit of the legislation to help those who are, since there is little chance that they will go back to work. If I had been at that briefing, I would have been very angry because none of that is true.

Tomorrow we will debate my bill at second reading and I hope that it will be passed and referred to committee. Then we could document and prove that 26 weeks are not enough and that we need 50. We hope that common sense will prevail and that in committee we will be able to convince government members that we need 50 weeks for workers who are sick.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that this is an important week, National Nursing Week. I want to take this opportunity to thank not only the amazing nurses of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford but those who work across Vancouver Island, the province of B.C. and our great country for the hard work they do every day.

For people who doubt how severe an illness COVID-19 really is, they need only speak to a nurse who works incredibly long hours in an ICU, who helps patients in respiratory distress and who is often the only one there when a patient meets his or her end. I want to acknowledge our amazing nurses and thank them for their service. They do an amazing job on behalf of our communities.

We are at a point now where we have been battered quite hard by COVID-19, and this third wave has certainly been the worst of them all. I know people are exhausted everywhere. Some members before me have referenced the physical, mental and emotional exhaustion that we all feel at this moment. We are all looking for some light at the end of this very long and dark tunnel.

However, we are at the stage now where there is a noticeable uptake in vaccinations. We are certainly at a point in British Columbia right now where people in my age group are starting to book their vaccination appointments. In fact, I just booked mine today. I am looking forward to getting that first shot and joining the growing list of my fellow citizens who have received theirs.

Today, we are here to discuss Bill C-30, the government's budget implementation act, which followed its April budget. It proposes several legislative changes to bring those measures into force. However, I do not think that all the measures that were announced in the budget are contained in the bill. I have heard reference that a second implementation act will follow in the fall of this year.

I have been listening to the speeches on Bill C-30 today and to some of the concerns about the spending that is going on in this budget and the eye-watering deficit in which we find ourselves. We would not be at this stage if it had not been for the pandemic. We have had to open up the federal taps to help struggling small businesses and individuals weather this storm, and to ensure those small businesses are still in operation when we finally are clear of the pandemic.

However, in all the concerns I have heard about the spending, I have not really heard much discussion from either the Liberals or Conservatives on how we address the revenue shortfall, how we ensure that when we get back on the road of recovery, when we try to get the books back to a balanced status, that we do not unfairly place the burden on working families. We need only look at the example in the 1990s when the Liberal government, with finance minister Paul Martin, had a very large axe, and they swung it everywhere. There were incredible slashes made to health care transfers and housing, and that left a lot of working families in extreme pain.

How do we move forward in a way that saves working families from continuing to bear the brunt of the costs from this pandemic? The answer is simple. It is a wealth tax, which is a simple 1% on fortunes of over $20 million. We have proposed that because we are in a state now where over the last year we have seen Canada's billionaires increase their wealth by an exponential amount.

I am still scratching my head when I hear my Conservative colleagues say that this is not time to impose a tax. Clearly, Canadians of all political persuasion have indicated strong favour for imposing a wealth tax, for ensuring that the wealthy and well-connected are paying their fair share. A 1% tax on fortunes of over $20 million is not targeting our normal constituents. In fact, I do not think I know anyone personally with a fortune of over $20 million. This is a smart economic policy to ensure that the burden does not fall on most of our constituents. It is about finding that way forward.

I would have liked to have seen Bill C-30 and, indeed, the budget speech from April 19 contain some specific references to targeting very wealthy individuals, maybe putting in a profiteering tax, similar to what the Canadian government did during World War II, as well as harsher measures to crack down on tax evasion. So much revenue is slipping through the fingers of the CRA right now. People who can afford to pay that money, who have the means to pay the tax, are not paying their fair share and are using existing loopholes to escape notice. It is shameful behaviour and it is morally wrong. It means that the rest of our constituents have to shoulder that unfair burden.

I am also very interested in the part of the budget implementation legislation that deals with child care. I am a very strong believer and supporter of child care. I ran very strongly on this platform in 2015. I remember the Liberals criticizing the NDP plan back then, so it is nice to see they have now adopted it, almost six years later, and that it is finally in the budget.

However, I compare the rationale behind child care versus what the Liberals have said on pharmacare. Under division 34 of of the bill, we see a legislative framework to set up child care, yet when the NDP proposed a legislative framework that was based on the Canada Health Act to bring in a pharmacare system, the Liberals voted against that.

Child care is great, and I really hope this time around it does succeed, but when it comes to pharmacare, we have been waiting since 1997, when the Liberals last promised it. Every month, families right across the country are having to make those difficult decisions when there are unexpected medical costs. It can really break the family budget. Those investments can have a tangible impact on the budgets of working families and help them make it from month to month.

The member for St. John's East, my great colleague, has introduced a motion in the House of Commons to expand our health care system to include dental care. That is also a key missing element. For the life of me, I cannot understand why health care coverage ends at one's tonsils and does not include strong oral care. We know that poor oral health is a very strong indicator of more serious medical conditions. It is ultimately a class issue. People who have the means and the wealth can afford good dental care. Often people are lucky enough to have good dental coverage through their work. However, a lot of people have lost those benefits in this pandemic. They have had their hours reduced or they have lost their jobs altogether. We need to make those very important and specific investments in health care.

It is great that the budget implementation bill addressed EI sickness benefits, unfortunately raising it only to 26 weeks. The House of Commons has repeatedly indicated support for the full 52 weeks or even 50 weeks, which I have heard in some iterations. This is important because Canada pension plan disability benefits do not often kick in unless someone has a demonstrated illness or injury that will make them incapable of work for over a year. Often people are falling in the gap between what the Liberals are now proposing, the 26 weeks, and a full year, which is 52 weeks. That could have been done quite easily.

The Liberals do enjoy their half-measures, so if 26 weeks is what we will get this time, I will accept, but I want it to be known that it is not good enough. Definite improvements need to be made to that.

I know I am within my last minute, so I will end on a positive note. The budget is certainly a mixed bag, but as the NDP critic for agriculture, it is nice to see some investments coming to that sector, really trying to concentrate on the area of environmental sustainability. Our farmers are on the front lines of climate change, but they also have the tools to be one of our greatest weapons in fighting climate change. In the future, I would love to see more investments come their way, investments that concentrate on the sector's ability to sequester carbon.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30 and to share some of my reflections, not only on the government's budget and its implementation, but also on how the government views its relationship to Canadians.

I have been open in my critique of this budget. There is some good, and there are some things to be optimistic about, but ultimately this long-anticipated budget lacks the courage required to lead this country into a bold, new future. Canadians were not given a clear picture of what concrete steps will be taken to lift us up from our darkest hour. What we all need is leadership.

A leader speaks with clarity. Instead, we often spin our wheels with mixed messaging. The government has clearly indicated that we will be net-zero by 2050, while missing the point entirely that the decade we are currently in is actually the most important to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

A leader speaks with consistency. On the one hand, the government declared a climate emergency in 2019. Then, within the month, it had purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline to shepherd it through construction and more than double oil sands production.

A leader acts with integrity. The government says that no relationship is more important than its relationship with indigenous peoples, yet court injunctions are being enforced on unceded lands across this country in the name of law and order. Reconciliation has lost its meaning.

This budget is just another example of symbolism over substance, where we maintain the status quo under the guise of transformation. I am certain I am not the only one who feels as though the last 14 months have simultaneously trickled by at a snail's pace and disappeared in the blink of an eye.

Last March, the world had to stop. We had to stop travelling, stop going to the office and stop enjoying Sunday dinners with grandparents. We had to adapt. Week by week, month by month, we were tested. We saw COVID sweep through long-term care homes as residents had no access to PPE or rapid testing. We closed our borders as a nation and many provinces chose to do the same. In those early months, there was no certainty about vaccine production timelines. All the while, tremors were shaking the economy, hitting small and medium-sized businesses the hardest.

We now find ourselves 14 months into this pandemic, and the Deputy Prime Minister has tabled a budget said to focus on Canadians and the middle class, and those seeking to join it. This middle-class obsession is yet another way to avoid talking about the widening gap between those experiencing extreme poverty and the wealthy elite.

We are in the throws of a housing crisis from coast to coast to coast. Not only is it becoming more and more difficult for young people to purchase their first home, but people cannot afford apartments as rental market prices are skyrocketing. People across the nation still do not have access to a primary care provider, mental health care professionals or the ability to pay for their medications they require to live.

Research published last month exposed that over half of Canadians, 53% of them, are within $200 of not being able to cover their monthly bills. This includes the 30% who report they are already insolvent with no money left at month's end to cover their payments. This is unacceptable. How have we let income inequality reach this point? How is it that we are unwilling to face it down directly?

Instead, our government would rather reflect wistfully on the middle class, while banks increase their profits and children go hungry. People are having a hard time. The people we work for. They have done their best to manage so far, but I have felt the increased weight of it all in their correspondences to my office over the last month or two.

People's financial reserves are exhausted. Their emotional reserves are exhausted. They do not need insincerity from their government. They need to be seen. When over half of our population is living with the anxiety of maybe not being able to make ends meet, or already being unable to do so, perhaps this middle-class concept is a little more than a relic of a bygone era.

It is important to name things as they are so we can approach them with integrity. I want us to have real conversations about offering stability, health and well-being to Canadians, meeting them where they are at, understanding the urgency and acting. This budget is a missed opportunity to truly offer Canadians a shift to directly improve their quality of life.

I had been hoping that one lesson taught by the pandemic would have been that we were able to act quickly and put in place life-changing programs, such as the Canadian emergency response benefit. In many cases, it kept people quite literally alive. However, even with the CERB, the government demonstrated indifference to the most vulnerable. We determined an amount that would be livable, knowing full well that we were continuing to ask persons with disabilities, seniors and those on social assistance to live on much less.

We had a chance to offer Canadians the stability of a ground floor to ensure that basic needs are met. We could have offered a collective sigh of relief with a guaranteed basic income. Instead, many Canadians are still holding their breath. I will not hold mine while I wait for the promises of the government to come through.

Another lesson I was had hoped to see reflected in the budget was the need to address racism and systemic inequality. We are still waiting for action on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Words will not protect them. Words will not have their cases investigated the way they should be, and words will not root out hate and white supremacy in our society.

The Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat should have a robust plan to reach into every corner of our institutions to confront the vectors of power that have been at play since colonization began. Racism kills. We must adopt Joyce's principle that aims to guarantee that indigenous people have equitable access to all health and social services and to the highest attainable standard without discrimination.

We also need concrete, long-lasting actions for change in the Criminal Code, police enforcement and the carceral system. We know that our society will not be able to thrive until we break down the barriers that prevent people from living their full lives. Until there are real reparations and real justice, we cannot talk about reconciliation.

This budget is supposed to be about building a more resilient Canada, one that is better, fairer, more prosperous and more innovative, but without implementing a guaranteed livable income, I do not see how it will help Canadians to be more prosperous. While refusing to hike the capital gains tax and a reticence to impose a significant wealth tax, this has nothing to do with being better or more fair.

Who will bear the brunt of the deficits anticipated for the next decades? It is one thing to announce long-overdue investments in health care and housing, but these were needed decades ago. Will the government have the courage to implement a tax to target the large corporations that are profiting off this pandemic? As things stand, these corporations are the ones building back better and they are doing it on the backs of Canadians.

The minister also said that this budget is in line with the global shift to a green, clean economy. Everyone here should know without any surprise that I strongly support that vision, but I wish I was able to believe that this statement had value beyond the rhetorical. I see the situation we are facing as a potential opportunity. As the entire world looks to shift away from fossil fuels, we are given an incentive to figure it out now, to invest in innovation that will meet the energy demand with renewable energy or that will reduce our total energy demand.

The economic opportunity of new industries combined with an effort to redirect workers to these sectors holds immense potential. I know that some Canadians, indeed some members of this House, see me as an idealist or perhaps even naive, but my commitment to the rotational workers in my home province and beyond is real. I believe with every fibre of my being that their best futures are not travelling to and from Alberta for dwindling work in a dying industry. Their knowledge and skills can be transferred to benefit the economy of the future, one that is sustainable and renewable, one they can proudly leave to their children and grandchildren. That takes courage to stand one's ground and to do what is right, even when some people do not like it.

I know that with all of my colleagues in this House, we share the common objective of improving the lives of Canadians, but I also know we see different ways of getting there. As a woman, a mother and an educator, I want to put the emphasis on the well-being of people above all. I know that with a healthy and happy society, we can all thrive. What we need is a government with the courage to lead, a government that will share a vision for Canada that inspires us and a resolve to charge forward in that direction with confidence. This is how we will transform our society. This is how we will build the Canada of tomorrow.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1, introduced by my colleague the Minister of Finance. This is a first in Canadian history and I think it deserves to be acknowledged once again, as many members of the House already have. As the first woman to introduce a budget implementation bill in the House, the finance minister has broken down another barrier and inspired young girls in the process.

The budget essentially has three main themes. First, since March 2020, our objective has been to help Canadians get through the pandemic. Second, we want to help build a bridge to help SMEs get through the pandemic, since many small and medium-sized businesses have had to close their doors because of lockdown measures. Third, once the pandemic is over, we want a fair, equitable and green economic recovery. My speech today will address these three themes.

The objective of budget 2021 is obviously to help Canadians, for example through programs like the Canada emergency benefit or the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

Many members know that workers have unfortunately lost their jobs as a result of lockdown measures or because schools are closed and they need to stay home with their kids. A number of measures in budget 2021 will be extended until September to help Canadians through the crisis.

I just mentioned the Canada emergency wage subsidy. I have spoken with several business owners who were calling for this benefit to be extended beyond June 2021. It has been extended until September 25. This is good news for our small businesses, which have done an outstanding job of adapting and finding new ways to serve their customers.

I want to take a moment to commend the Prescott-Russell Community Development Corporation for the work it has done through the minister responsible for economic development. The corporation gave subsidies of up to $20,000 to help businesses adapt to the digital economy and develop an online presence, allowing residents to purchase products and services. Congratulations to everyone who made this happen.

As I mentioned earlier, the Canada emergency wage subsidy will be extended to September 25.

Regarding help for businesses that had to close down, we also extended the rent subsidy program. It has been so important for many of those businesses that are either paying rent or a mortgage but are forced to be closed. I think about hair salons that, in some parts of Ontario, have not opened in over a year. One can tell the region somebody comes from by the type of haircut they have. Some people have very long hair right now. Needless to say, these salons are an important part of our economy and I am glad we are helping them with the rent support program.

The CEBA loan was also extended. It has helped many businesses in my riding. Businesses can apply for up to $60,000, and if they reimburse it prior to a certain date, they can get access to a $20,000 grant.

Now, here are some of the measures we have outlined in budget 2021.

Fair, equitable and green economic recovery was one of the main themes of this budget. I am thinking primarily of child care. If we want a strong economy and economic recovery, we need to make sure that women participate equitably in our economy.

It is true that promises have been made before—some were even made when I was 7, apparently. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are determined to ensure that this program is implemented once and for all. I hope we will have all-party support, as this is a very important measure.

When I was young, I could easily visit my grandmother, whose house was just behind ours. My mother had to go back to work after only three months of maternity leave. Not every parent has the option of having a family member look after their children. That is why access to child care and the cost of those services are so important.

We know that parents can spend from $40 to $100 a day per child for child care, sometimes more. They often wonder whether they should just stay at home to look after their children because it is simply not worth it for them to participate in the economy or to work while they have children at home. That is not a choice that people should have to make in our society, in a G7 country like Canada.

The Government of Quebec has had a proper child care program in place for decades. It is a great example. There is no reason why Ontario and the other provinces should not have a similar program. I am sure that the negotiations will be successful and that the Minister of Finance will get positive results for our families, who are so dependent on affordable child care. That is why we want to reduce the cost of such services by half by 2022 and cap it at $10 per day by 2025-26. That is a realistic and worthy objective that will help families across Canada.

The other important measure in the budget and in this act is help for our seniors. During the election campaign, we promised to increase support for seniors by 10% starting at age 75 for a very simple reason. Starting at age 65, seniors have access to old age security, as well as the guaranteed income supplement for our most vulnerable seniors. The guaranteed income supplement was increased by 10% in 2016, another promise that we kept.

Now we have committed to increasing old age security starting at age 75 for another very simple reason, which is that most seniors exhaust their savings before they reach 75 and suffer the consequences, with some falling below the poverty line. The proposed increase has a noble purpose, and it fulfills our campaign commitment.

Another important aspect of budget 2021 is none other than the issue of a green economic recovery.

I am so glad we are finally focusing on a green economic recovery. The measures in budget will reduce corporate tax rates by 50% for those manufacturers that produce zero-emissions technology. What a great incentive to position Canada as a go-to partner for the world to reuse our products. If we want to get to net zero by 2050, Canada has to do its part, but other countries have to do their part as well. There is no reason why Canada cannot be a provider of net-zero emissions technology. The incentive to reduce the tax rate by 50% is a great example.

Finally, I know we get accused of not being fiscally responsible. We are being compared to the 1990s, so I am will recall some facts. In the 1990s, the debt-to-GDP was 66% and the interest rates were at 12%. Thankfully, we are no where near that. I know that the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to 51.2%, but then it will decline to 49.2%. By next year, the deficit will be reduced by half and by the following year, the deficit will be reduced even further by half again.

We are on a clear path to get to a budgetary balance, but we will also ensure we do not leave anyone behind. Budget 2021 is all about that. We want a fair, green economic recovery that leaves no one behind.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member mentioning child care in his speech. Child care has always been very important to me and to the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is something I strongly campaigned on back in 2015.

My question is about the Liberal standard with respect to negotiating with the provinces. In Bill C-30, under division 34, we see that a legislative framework has been set up to get the early learning and child care system put into place, yet when the NDP came forward with a similar legislative framework in a version of Bill C-213 to set up pharmacare, the Liberals voted against it. Why was that?

Second, when can constituents in my riding and across Canada expect to see action on pharmacare, so that working families are no longer suffering under the huge burden of costs associated with unexpected pharmaceutical medications?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Clearly, the microphones are a real problem.

I will continue my speech.

I was saying that raising the minimum wage to $15 was sending the right kind of message. We found out that all our guardian angels, all the essential workers, who were brought out of the shadows by the pandemic, earned low wages. By ensuring them a minimum wage of $15 an hour, we are sending them the right kind of message.

Still on the subject of labour laws, I would say this is a half measure. It is a good start, but it is only one step.

With regard to the practice of contract flipping, we can see the intention to add the word “airport” to the Canada Labour Code. The airport sector is hardest hit by this practice, which undercuts its workers. This is a demand that has long been supported by the workers of this industry.

I will now remind members of the situation and what constitutes contract flipping.

In the airport sector, the workers and unions have no leverage to protect the working conditions they have fought for over time. Consequently, with contract flipping, where the work is given to a different subcontractor, workers lose everything. They lose their jobs and working conditions. The subcontractor has no obligation to them, and so the workers' salaries can even be cut. This destroys lives and careers.

Workers could be hired by a new employer, but they have to start at the bottom, despite having 25 years' experience, for example. However, the work is the same, they must work with the same tools and equipment and work the same schedule. By adding the term “airport” in the budget implementation bill, there is some protection for these workers when contract flipping occurs.

I will now speak about half measures, since the Liberals seem to want to only protect salaries.

That is what happened during the recent dispute between Swissport employees and the Montreal-Trudeau and Mirabel airports. The Swissport employees' contract was changed.

Workers who used to earn $23 per hour are now earning $16 per hour for the same work. That obviously makes no sense. This bill would rectify situations like that. It has to go further, though. Why stop halfway?

This is a half-measure. Pay should not be the only thing the law protects. Working conditions, pension plans, insurance plans and union recognition should also be protected. That is what people want, and it is the right thing to do. That is what we are calling for, and that is what unions are calling for. We hope this part of the bill will be improved so we can go all the way.

When it comes to a given situation or practice, what we are asking for is simple. We do not want workers to suffer when the supplier changes. If the government tackles a particular issue, it might as well make sure that issue will not come up again later because it only went halfway. I am expecting to see amendments in this area.

There is something missing in our labour laws, something that workers have long called for. The government says it wants to protect workers and the middle class. That is easy to say but they are unwilling to lean left to better protect people in situations where they are really struggling. Something is missing, and that is anti-scab legislation to stop employers from using scabs in a labour dispute.

In Quebec, the issue has already been settled. The Quebec Labour Code prohibits the practice. Quebec's anti-scab legislation was adopted in 1977, but there is nothing like it in the Canada Labour Code.

Using scabs during a strike is a completely outdated practice, and yet employers have no qualms about exploiting this weakness in the legislation.

For example, in February 2020, employees of the City of Fredericton had their jobs stolen by scabs in the middle of a lockout. There was a similar situation in June 2020 for the energy workers at the Co-op Refinery in Regina, as well as in March 2020, in New Brunswick, involving the workers of the Red Pine landfill.

Also, what about the situation at the Port of Montreal? In August 2020, the representative of the employer indicated that he intended to work with replacement workers or managers, ignoring the rights of unionized workers. We even saw that in the dispute between the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, or IAMAW, and Swissport, which I was talking about earlier with regard to contract flipping, and the workers went on strike. The employer took advantage of the opportunity to hire scabs to drag out the negotiations. The employer had no interest in quickly settling the dispute.

All that to say that the government could have taken action and corrected an injustice by passing anti-scab legislation, but it failed to do so with Bill C-30.

Now I would like to quickly talk about the employment insurance system. It is unbelievable to think that, after all these years, with all of the studies and consultations that have been done, the government is not doing anything about this social safety net that is so important for workers receiving EI benefits, workers—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope to avoid having any more microphone problems. If I do have any, I know I can count on my hon. colleague from Drummond to speak up; I rely on his sound advice.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. My initial observations are that this budget sprinkles billions of dollars on just about everyone. The budget implementation bill contains a number of half measures, and we have noticed several things that are missing. For a stimulus budget, what it lacks above all is meaningful measures.

I would like to begin my speech by talking about the labour-related announcements included in the budget and pointing out how positive they are. The Minister of Labour is implementing one of the commitments included in her mandate letter, specifically to amend the Canada Labour Code to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Although this measure affects only about 26,000 federal employees, it nevertheless sends a message to everyone who has come out of the shadows as a result of the crisis.

Madam Speaker, I am hearing a conversation going on, and a member's voice—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today. It is our second day of looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-30. Given that the budget was over 700 pages long and the budget implementation act is over 300 pages, I will start at a higher level of extraction by examining the nature of this legislation and refamiliarizing some of us with the controversial issue of omnibus bills.

This is clearly an omnibus bill, but I want to set out why it is not offensive. At over 300 pages long, the budget implementation act contains well over 20 acts. It affects the Canada Labour Code, the Federal Courts Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, two different varieties of student loans and student financial assistance. I will not read them all, but a large number of pieces of legislation are affected.

The issue of illegitimate omnibus budget bills takes us back to the era of the Harper administration in a minority. They were the best way to push through offensive legislation when parties that formed the majority of the members of Parliament, but were not the administration, would have objected. With the use of offensive omnibus budget bills, the Conservative government quite shrewdly discerned that it could put through things that would not otherwise get public support or MP support, given that they are confidence votes. It put through things such as the Budget Implementation Act 2008 and Budget Implementation Act 2009, which weakened environmental assessment leading up to the majority actions of that government. It continued to put lots of things in budget implementation acts that were omnibus bills.

An omnibus bill merely means that many pieces of legislation are being passed all at once. This is not offensive is if it is all to one purpose. Everything in Bill C-30 is mentioned in the budget. As far as I can see, there are no sneaky surprises, as we discovered in a recent budget in which there were deferred prosecution agreements for corporations. As I go through this bill, it is not like the omnibus budget bill of spring 2012 that destroyed our environmental assessment process, which has still not been repaired. It gutted the Fisheries Act and eliminated the national round table, among other things. This is an omnibus bill, but it is appropriate in that everything I can find in Bill C-30 is consistent with the budget itself and has to do with legislative changes to make it possible to enact the budget, which this Parliament has now passed.

There are items of concern. When the bill gets to committee, maybe improvements could be made on some of these, but certainly it is of concern to see withdrawal of supports for important things within our economy during COVID. We are clearly not looking at a post-pandemic budget. After not having had a budget for two years, this budget continues to face times of deep uncertainty. I have had my first vaccine shot. I will wait four months and then get a second shot. With vaccines, we see there is light at the end of the tunnel, but with variants, spikes and economies in various provinces opening up a bit and then closing rapidly, there are a lot of reasons why businesses and individual Canadians will continue to need support.

The notion that we would lower the Canada recovery benefit from the current $500 a week to $300 a week by July should be looked at. That is soon, and we may not be ready for that. The wage subsidy is ending by September. A lot of businesses in my riding know for sure that they will need that wage subsidy well beyond September. There are deep concerns particularly in the tourism sector, so I will focus on tourism for a minute.

The tourism sector has received $500 million in the budget, and that is not nearly enough. We underestimate it, as Canadians and even as parliamentarians. All of us have tourism in our ridings, and collectively across the country tourism's contribution to GDP is roughly the same as the oil sands. It employs far more people, thousands and thousands of them, across Canada in every region, and $500 million is not adequate to meet the needs of the tourism sector.

Big businesses in my riding, attractions such as Butchart Gardens, would normally have upwards of 700 to 800 employees seasonally. Butchart Gardens did not have anything like that number last summer because it was not open, but the wage subsidy allowed it to keep specialists employed: the hundreds of people who were recruited from around the world as horticulturalists. It simply will not be able to keep that workforce if we do not have a wage subsidy. If it loses that workforce and these specialists, horticulturalists and experts are not able to be employed here, they will go to other countries. Their skills are in demand.

We have a very big concern about the $500 million provided for tourism and the $1 billion for promotion. Some of the businesses in my riding feel rather hollowed out by the notion that we will have a billion dollars going to advertising attractions in Canada that cannot stay open.

It is also peculiar that we have a decision by the Department of Transportation that cruise ships on our coasts will not open until February 28, 2022. I have yet to see any justification for that arbitrary date. This is a big concern, because if we are letting people get on airplanes, are saying there are vaccination passports and that people are okay to travel, certainly we should be informed of why there is this arbitrary date. It would continue to damage tourism.

This budget is also very short on support for ground transport. The bus lines of this country, whether Wilson Bus Lines or Maritime Bus, need more connectivity between cities and towns. The support for Via Rail is welcome, at $491 million, but it is all in the Windsor-Quebec corridor. What about Vancouver to Toronto and Montreal to Halifax? In the absence of Greyhound, the Irving Bus Line and others that run between communities, those routes need daily trains and an expanded economy service.

What is missing again is what we are going to do to improve our financial prospects going forward. If we are not going to be looking at cuts, we need more revenue. There are some new taxes in this budget and some ways to save money. I particularly applaud the idea that the Government of Canada is going to stop spending as much on travel by civil servants: That is a $1-billion savings over five years. Most of that travel, as we know, was by air. We have learned during COVID that we can find other ways to meet that avoid greenhouse gases and avoid so much travel.

Long-term we need to look at more revenue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out that our debt-to-GDP ratio is going to level out at about 51%. It was about 30.6% before the pandemic, and it will be 2055 before we get to pre-pandemic debt-to-GDP ratios. In 1995-96, we were at 66%, but we do not want to go through that deep austerity program ever again. We have to protect our health system. We have to expand it with pharmacare, which should have been in this budget and was not.

We need to look at where we can get more revenue and be consistent. For heaven's sake, it is time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. It is time to cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is going to cost another $10 billion to $12 billion. We are looking at excess profits from our banks. We should be going after those. We should be looking at a wealth tax. We certainly do not do enough in this budget. It suggests consultations on what to do about credit card interest rates and horrific payday loans. Those things need more attention.

We need to look at improving the revenue line so that we can afford universal pharmacare, which we must, and so that we can make sure the day care program takes place across the country for all Canadians. As well, we need to bring in support initially for low-income dental and get rid of the interest on Canadian student loans. All those need revenue in their appropriate place. With that, I am thankful for the time to speak to Bill C-30.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-30.

Before I start, I want to acknowledge and thank the voters for putting together a minority Parliament. I came here during the majority government in 2002. I have experienced majority governments for the Liberals and the Conservatives, as well as minority governments. I have found that this Parliament, at least, has been much more flexible and cooperative in many respects than the previous government, which had a large majority. At that time we heard that a lot of the things being proposed in this budget were unattainable for Canadians, such as child care and increases to employment insurance.

I am proud of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and others at the finance committee. With all of the presentations that have taken place, they have consistently come forward, arguing for better programs, investments and choices than we currently have. I became a New Democrat a little bit before Jack Layton, but when we got with Jack, we were more into proposition than opposition.

We are proud to have influenced this economic situation and challenges for Canadians, in bringing the Liberals to some action on items that we had been told could never be done. We were told there were not the finances for them or that they were bad for the economy and all sorts of different things.

During the majority government we had before, very little got done. A lot of things were put off. I think now we see much more activism in the base of Parliament. At times there is high drama, but definitely, as a minority Parliament, we have gotten more accomplished than we did in the previous government where getting any of these things done was often mocked. I point to the increased supports for small businesses, the wage subsidy and the CERB, all of which were basically left out of the initial response to the pandemic, including student debt. I could not say how many times I have stood in this chamber and argued that interest should not be applied to student debt because it is an investment. Interest would bring on further debt. Debt also delays family experiences because people have to put off life decisions. As opposed to paying down the interest on loans from the banks, that money could be going to investments for people's futures and also to our communities.

The problem that we have with some of the issues in this budget is that they do not get rid of the problems for the future, but just kick them down the road a little bit. The increased benefits for seniors are a good example: They are divided between people who are 65 and people who are 75, and division is not what we need now with COVID-19.

I look at what this arbitrary age division would mean for my constituency in Windsor, Tecumseh, Essex, and all the regions around us, as we have a significant senior population. We have a lot of people with health issues. The ecosystem that we are a part of includes the pollutants drifting from the United States as well as from our own industrial base, and means that the risks to people's health are much higher than elsewhere. We have scientific evidence of this. One of the reasons I got involved in politics at the federal level was the Gilbertson and Brophy report, in which the Chrétien government at that time tried to hide a government study showing higher rates of cancer, thyroid issues, respiratory issues and all kinds of issues for infants. All of those different things came to light.

What I am suggesting is that the age factor for seniors really makes no difference. The risk factors are almost the same. The government is dividing those people. I do not know why, when what we are having to invest is pennies in the overall scheme of things. That money, for the most part, goes to paying for rent and food. It goes into the local economy. It allows people to live with dignity. It often goes for medications. We still do not see a pharmacare element to this bill, which is unfortunate. When we look at the investments we also do not see dental care, which is really crucial.

That is why New Democrats are continuing to present the government with options they can look at. The U.S. administration under President Biden brought in a wealth tax. Many other countries have done that as well. There are, quite frankly, winners and losers under COVID-19 for a lot of different reasons. Part of that is public policy.

For good reasons different businesses have had to close or amend their business practices. It has been very challenging for them, through no fault of their own or anybody else, but to prevent the spread of COVID they have lost their regular income. That is why these employment subsidies are important. Other businesses have emerged from this and have really done quite well. We do not hear about insurance companies having problems because business is very lucrative right now.

We can see from the work done at the industry committee that the telco giants have done exceptionally well during this time. I will give some credit to them: There have been improved incentives for consumers, but the volume of products that have gone out has risen exponentially, as have their profits and their responsibility to help offset some things right now.

There is no petroleum monitoring agency in this budget. Gas pricing, the hosing of consumers and the lack of accountability are still significant problems in Canada because we do not publish the rack pricing the United States gets. There is less accountability for that in Canada. A petroleum monitoring agency was supposed to be brought in by the Paul Martin regime, but it was never fulfilled. A motion passed in the House of Commons that it was supposed to be established. It was created, then it was defunded, and then when the Conservatives took power it was off the books. It languished and was in the works for a long time. It took us years to even try to get it. That was an oversight of a basic thing. As a result, people pay more out of pocket.

There are still significant public subsidies for the oil and gas industry. In one of my first speeches on this issue, about a decade ago, I listed 17 different ways an oil and gas company could get a subsidy from the federal government at the time. Some of that has been reduced a little, but it is still not anywhere near where it should be. It is interesting that the U.S. taxes worldwide profits and Canada does not. The current administration in the U.S. is going to be introducing higher corporate taxes. If we do more subsidization, the profit margins will be higher here, so we will be sending dollars to Washington, so to speak.

We have to look at these things. There is no doubt about tax havens, as we have seen in the news again today. How ridiculous is this? How many times do people have to suffer through the inappropriate taxation policies we have now? People who can afford accountants and lawyers, and who squirrel money away, are seen as clever and capable. They get away with it, whereas in Windsor and Essex region the working class cannot afford those types of services to hide money and to pay less than other people. That is where there should be a significant improvement in this budget.

New Democrats have called for not only an investment in people, but also in green transportation infrastructure. In my area, the auto sector is significant and we fail to see much improvement in this budget. There are some vague references, but no measures to get results. There is still no Canadian national auto strategy. Last week, Ford Motor Company announced more funding for battery and electric vehicle production in Detroit and the surrounding area, which has eclipsed my area and the entire country. Detroit and the surrounding region have almost tripled or quadrupled all of Canada's investments in green auto infrastructure and strategies for battery and electric vehicle manufacturing and production. This is important, because a transition is taking place. If we look at jobs in the production of parts and all of the different components, we are losing more of that market share. What is unfortunate about that is we are also losing out on the growth of the industry beyond the auto sector by having that innovation take place.

Canadians are also worried about the passing on of debt, and how to finance it. That is why New Democrats have provided some solutions, such as a significant luxury tax, not just for boats and cars but for other things as well. Right now, real estate speculators for foreign investors are sitting on empty land and are getting away with using our tax haven system. That is a problem. As we look at this budget implementation act part one, keeping in mind that part two has to be done in the fall, Canadians can count on New Democrats to try to make things work here in this chamber.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see some of my colleagues having a good laugh, some good discourse and a level of levity, despite the challenging circumstances.

I am very pleased to have the chance to speak to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. I had the chance a couple weeks ago to speak to the budget writ large, and I am going to use my time here today to highlight some investments that may not be the headlines, but which I think are extremely important to what the budget represents in terms of major proposed programs.

I will start with the continuation of the emergency measures. Nova Scotia was not under lockdown two weeks ago. We had not suffered from the third wave that other jurisdictions in the country had. Right now we have over 1,000 cases in the province, which seems relatively small, but per capita it is quite significant.

These measures really matter. The government, by continuing the emergency wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the Canada response benefit, the suite of programs, until September, with the ability to extend it under the legislation, illustrates that this is extremely important. I think I would be remiss if I did not start from that basis. Our government is committed to getting Canadians, individuals and businesses through the pandemic, and that is extremely important.

I want to talk about biomanufacturing investments. The budget would allocate $2.2 billion toward these types of initiatives. We know that coming into the pandemic. I think all parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians and countries around the world, on the other side of the pandemic, are going to be asking themselves what the key industries we will need to make sure we have domestic capacity. Whether it is for an event like COVID or some other type of event, the country needs to have that capacity.

For me, one industry would be agriculture, but of course, biomanufacturing is important. Our government has made investments throughout the pandemic. We are committing to making sure this does not happen again.

I look at companies in my own riding. For example, in Windsor, Nova Scotia, there is BioVectra, which has its base in Prince Edward Island, but which also has a presence in my riding of Kings—Hants. I think of BioMedica. These are the companies we can build, and we can continue to nurture that local expertise to make sure we have the capacity in our country in the days ahead.

Long-term health care was something I heard a lot about during the height of the pandemic, particularly when the reports from the Canadian Armed Forces were presented on the conditions in Quebec and Ontario. We need to be able to create national standards. We need to do better in this domain.

Yes, it is the domain and the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the federal government has shown leadership on health care initiatives, and it is really important that there is $3 billion in the budget to help support those standards. This is on top of the fall economic statement, which had a billion dollars allocated directly to the provinces. Of course, my colleagues and others have talked at great length about the programs that have been put in place, such as the safe restart program, to help support provinces. I wanted to highlight that for Canadians who might be watching here today and, indeed, my own constituents.

We know that the cost of the pandemic has been significant, and our government, from day one, has said we will be there with individuals and small businesses. The deficit is about $355 billion this year alone because of that support, which we determined as a government was a better path than the economic scarring that would come of not intervening in a positive way.

It is important that this budget helps create and drive economic growth to make the spending we have taken on during the pandemic sustainable over time, so I want to take an opportunity, and hopefully my colleagues will listen with intent, to talk about some of the important measures in the budget that I think need to be highlighted.

I wrote in September 2020 about regulatory modernization and regulatory reform. This is an important element for small business and businesses across the board. I tip my cap to my predecessor, Scott Brison, who was president of the Treasury Board during the last Parliament. He served with great honour and respect in Kings—Hants for 22 years, and I consider him a mentor and a friend.

He took a great leadership role in the last Parliament on regulatory reform, and we are committing to build on that success in this budget with $6.1 million dollars allocated to continue efforts on that front at the federal level. I think that is extremely important.

Regarding interprovincial barriers to trade, estimates suggest that we could be losing somewhere between $50 billion and $130 billion to our economy every year because of internal barriers to trade. We would be allocating $21 million over the next three years toward trying to reduce those barriers and have co-operation between provinces and territories on harmonization of standards. We have a lot to gain in efficiencies and economic outcomes by working within Canada, and of course this is building on the success our government has already had in the last Parliament.

I talk about this a lot, but it bears repeating. We have an emerging wine sector in Kings—Hants. We have world-class wines. We know that the excise exemption that was created under the late Jim Flaherty in 2007 when he was the finance minister has been important to the success of our 100% Canadian wine industry. I am very pleased to see our government has committed $101 million over the next two years to help support the industry.

Of course, that is on the heels of the existing excise exemption being deemed not trade compliant. I look forward to working with the Minister of Agriculture and my colleagues to help keep driving those initiatives to support the sector in the days ahead. The ability to create interprovincial trade would allow small businesses in my riding of Kings—Hants to take advantage of that.

It is very difficult for consumers in Ontario or Quebec to enjoy some of our wines. I would encourage my colleagues to look at some of the many vineyards we have in the area. I am happy to provide recommendations. We need to be able to break down those barriers. I am proud our federal government got rid of any type of barriers at the federal level. I hope my provincial or territorial colleagues who might be watching can also take some leadership in easing and facilitating trade across provincial and territorial boundaries.

I do not think the Canada Small Business Financing Act has warranted a lot of conversation in this House, but I want to highlight some of the elements that are there. We know, particularly in rural communities, the importance of small businesses and what they mean with respect to providing jobs and opportunities for people in our communities. We are committing to expanding the loan eligibility under the Small Business Financing Act and increasing the maximum loan amount to $500,000 for non-real property loans.

We are also opening up opportunities for non-profits and charities. I have spoken at great length about the important role our volunteer sector plays, particularly in rural Canada. I am very pleased to see it will have access to financing under this mechanism as well, and a new line of credit option.

We will help reduce credit card merchant fees. How many of us are paying cash right now? Not a whole lot of people. I am the type who still likes to have a bit of cash in my wallet, but more and more people are using credit or debit cards. Our government is committed to help reduce the merchant fees associated with online or credit card transactions. I see this as a very positive step. I know there are restaurants and many different retail businesses that will welcome this type of thinking.

I also want to talk about the $1.9 billion for what is the national trade corridors fund. I sit on the agriculture committee, and I consider myself an advocate in this House for agriculture-related issues. This national corridors trade fund is crucial to helping make sure we have important links to get our many wonderful Canadian agriculture products to export markets. I am very pleased to see this.

Also, there is additional money, over $500 million, for the borders to improve trade and travel. I think about the chicken producers who talk about spent fowl at the border. This money could go to support those types of mechanisms to protect our supply-managed industry, which I know is so important to so many members in this House and, indeed, to many Canadians.

I will finish with three quick points.

One is around significant investments in the aerospace industry. In Kings—Hants, Halifax Stanfield International Airport is just outside my riding boundary, but we have thousands of jobs in my riding that are tied to the aviation industry writ large. I am very pleased to see those types of investments in the budget.

I often talk about my riding in the context of agriculture, but in the same sense we are a coastal community. We are home to the highest tides in the world. The $300 million over the next two years for small craft harbours is extremely important.

Finally, there are historic investments for indigenous communities. I have three indigenous communities in my riding I am proud to represent. I am also proud that our government is continuing on its legacy and good work around reconciliation.

[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.

[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.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the residents in my riding of Davenport. The last time I spoke on the budget, I ran out of time and so I will do my very best to be far more succinct today.

The truth is that this is a historic budget with a huge number of measures that will make a big difference in the lives of Canadians. In fact, in 10 minutes, it is virtually impossible to touch on all the reasons we need to pass the budget implementation act and to relay all the things that matter to Davenport, never mind all the important measures it contains for people right across the country. Instead, I will focus on a few key measures that may have been talked about a little less in the House. I will talk about the federal $15 minimum wage, some of the additional measures and funding for immigration, and the huge increase in funding for a new national action plan to end gender-based violence.

However, before I get to those measures, there are two huge game-changing segments of budget 2021 about I am super excited. I truly believe that they are once-in-a generation investments in our future and that they will be key to our future economic prosperity and jobs.

The first is that we are building a national child care program, which aims to bring child care fees down to $10 a day, will be key to the future economic prosperity and jobs in Canada. We are modelling the program on what Quebec currently does. This is a huge announcement for Davenport residents and families in my riding. We are located in the downtown west Toronto where child care costs are among the highest in the country, so I know they are really happy with this announcement.

Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, spoke to our Prime Minister in July 2016. She said that to boost growth, we needed to employ more women. She indicated at the time that the participation rate for women was 82% in 2015, which was well below the 92% level for men. She also indicated that more women received university degrees than men, but their labour participation rate was 7% lower than men. Thus, there is a lot of room to tap into the underutilized female labour force to anchor strong economic growth. I am delighted that national child care will absolutely enable that. It is good for women, it is good for our economy and it is absolutely critical for Canada's success in the future.

The second game-changing element in budget 2021 is a green restart to our economy. Of all the letters and telephone calls that come into my riding of Davenport, if we exclude anything related to COVID, a green recovery and a green restart is top of the list. I am delighted that budget 2021 confirms a green recovery will be a core part of our strategy to create one million jobs.

In addition to the $60 billion that we have already invested in climate action and clean growth since 2015, we have committed an additional $18 billion in budget 2021. These new dollars will be allocated for more investment in renewables, carbon capture and to protect 25% of our land and water. This is in addition to the plan we announced in December 2020, which is outlined in a report entitled, “A Healthy Environment and Healthy Economy”. For the first time in Canadian history, we included a very specific, transparent, costed plan on how we would reach our emissions reduction targets by 2030. I would note that we have become ambitious since that report came out in mid-December. On Earth Day last month, we announced that we would further reduce our emissions targets to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

For years, Davenport environmentalists have been asking for a clear plan, and that has been delivered. I really want to thank the amazing leadership of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for ensuring that we are moving urgently and aggressively to net zero by 2050.

Beyond these measures, I would like to speak about a number of others things.

The first is that we are establishing a federal minimum wage of $15 per hours, rising with inflation. There are provisions to ensure that where provincial or territorial minimum wages are higher, those wages will prevail. This $15 federal minimum wage will directly benefit over 26,000 workers who currently make less than $15 an hour in federally regulated private sectors.

It is no secret that the wages of most workers have not been keeping up with the cost of living and that many Canadians are struggling. We know that the $15 hourly federal minimum wage would be very welcomed by many across this country, and there is a lot of support for it from groups across the country.

The budget would make much-needed improvements to our immigration system. I believe that immigration is essential to Canada's economic future and positive economic growth. With our declining birth rates and increasing retirement rates, good immigration policy and funding will be fundamental to Canada's success moving forward.

I am the daughter of immigrants. My parents worked really hard to build a new life here and to contribute to a country that gave them a home and a safe place to raise their children. Indeed, 43% of my riding of Davenport are the first generation of their families in Canada. They were born in other countries, they specifically chose Canada to be their home and they contribute here. My office is a very popular spot for many immigration matters.

What improvements would budget 2021 make? Budget 2021 proposes to invest almost $430 million to deliver a new digital platform that would replace the outdated legacy global case management system. It also proposes $74 million to enhance capacity and service standards within the client support centre of the IRCC to ensure timely support by phone and email for inquiries related to services offered by the department. It also offers $29 million to be shared between IRCC and the Canada Border Services Agency to maintain and enhance processing capacity for temporary resident applications. I pulled out these three examples, but there are a number of other items.

This investment is huge. It is a game-changer, and it is key to ensuring efficient processing of new Canadians and immigrants. Many of our offices are very much offshoots of IRCC. The better the systems are that we have in place to provide the most timely information to new Canadians and new immigrants trying to come to this country, the better it is for everyone, and the faster we will be able to get them here and contributing to our economy.

We are also proposing a number of other measures to support temporary workers who come to Canada. Among these are more dollars to support migrant-worker-centric programs and services, to increase inspections of the sites that employ temporary foreign workers, and to improve the service delivery of open work permits for vulnerable workers, helping migrant workers in situations of abuse to find new jobs. This is important to point out, because we are determined to treat our migrant workers right. They do so much for us, from our agricultural sector to our food processing and health care sectors.

The final thing I want to point out is that we are providing additional legal aid support, which I know is very important to West Toronto Community Legal Services in my riding. It is to make sure that we provide the support that is needed from a legal perspective to refugees and immigrants who might need it.

I am going to use the last minute and a half to talk about another thing I am really excited about, which is our commitment to gender equality. We truly believe in gender equality and have done so much over the last five years, from installing a gender-balanced cabinet, enacting proactive pay legislation and contributing over $100 million to feminist and women's organizations, to tackling gender-based violence. I was delighted that we put in a historic amount of money, over $600 million, to enact a national action plan to end gender-based violence. For us to truly achieve gender equality in Canada, it is absolutely critical that we tackle gender-based violence. I am delighted that we are making this commitment in this budget and putting real resources behind it to make sure that we put a plan in place to have a dedicated secretariat.

In closing, there are so many elements of this budget that are game-changing. It would not only lead to economic growth, more jobs, a green recovery and more equitable and fuller participation in our workforce, it would also support our low-income earners and offer a better immigration system and a real plan to end violence against women. These measures set Canada up to become a more prosperous, more compassionate and more just society. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend.

This gives me an opportunity to share with the House what we have planned for the coming days.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

On Friday morning, we will begin by debating Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response, and then resume debate on the budget bill.

On Monday of next week, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C‑19. In the evening, we will resume the concurrence debate on the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

On Tuesday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-30, the budget legislation.

On Wednesday, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally, next Thursday shall be an opposition day.

I thank my colleague for his question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague, the member of Parliament for Davenport.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2021. As I stated during the budget debate, we as a government will continue to have the backs of Canadian workers and businesses as we continue the fight against COVID-19, but we will also take the next steps to position our economy for ongoing recovery and economic growth.

Simply, our ongoing focus is to strengthen Canada's middle class and help those who are working hard to join it. That has been our goal since Canadians, in the fall of 2015, entrusted us with moving Canada forward. As we fast forward to today, that is what we are laser focused on doing as a government. Strengthening a growing middle class, for me, equals a more inclusive and fair society.

It is a pleasure to represent the entrepreneurial and hard-working residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I wish to take a moment to encourage all residents who are eligible to receive a vaccine, to please make an appointment as soon as possible. My riding is home to a number of hot spots, and we need to ensure that all of our families and friends are safe and that life can get back to normal quickly. That can only occur through vaccinations.

I describe the budget as ambitious in attempting to answer the challenges we face not only today, but also tomorrow. Bill C-30 begins to implement this ambitious blueprint to build a resilient and more inclusive Canada.

In 2015, we promised Canadians that we would reduce taxes for millions of middle-class Canadians and raise them for the top 1%, and that is exactly what we did. In 2019, we again promised Canadians we would reduce their taxes by raising the amount of income they could earn without paying federal taxes. Bill C-30 implements that promise.

Bill C-30 will raise the basic personal exemption amount from $12,298 to $13,220 for the 2020 taxation year and, once fully implemented, to $15,000 for the 2023 taxation period. This tax reduction means that hard-working Canadians, including those in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, will see savings at the onset of $2.9 billion. Once fully implemented, it will result in $5.6 billion in lower taxes for 2023-2024 and thereafter.

It is estimated that hard-working individuals will save just under $300 per year, while middle-class Canadian families, on average, will save $600 per year. That is $600 for middle-class families to spend on groceries, kids' after-school sports or arts programs, or to put away as savings for their kids' education.

The increase is estimated to result in an additional 700,000 Canadians, including seniors and young people starting their careers, who will pay no federal tax at all. Just as important is that approximately 40,000 more Canadians will be lifted out of poverty by this measure. That is real progress and that is smart policy. That is how to build a stronger middle class and help those working hard to join the middle class.

Millions of hard-working Canadians will benefit from this tax reduction and hundreds of thousands will be lifted from the tax rolls. It is great to see that the implementation of the basic personal exemption increase will be done. It is an idea that I have long championed and one I put forth in the 2019 platform.

Bill C-30 will extend the current support programs through to September, and will continue to assist Canadian workers and businesses that remain impacted by COVID-19. The CEWS and the Canada emergency rent subsidy are programs that I know literally hundreds of businesses in my riding have used, and continue to use during this difficult third wave of the pandemic. Budget 2021 provides certainty and clarity to Canadian businesses on both of these key support programs. The city of Vaughan is home to over 12,000 small and medium-sized businesses and they know that our government continues to have their backs during COVID-19.

Our goal must not only be to recover the jobs lost because of the pandemic, but to once again create good, middle-class jobs for Canadians. Bill C-30 spurs job creation with a new Canada recovery hiring program that incentivizes the hiring of new workers as we emerge from the pandemic. To build a fairer and more inclusive economy that works for all Canadians, we need to ensure that our tax system is fair and inherently progressive, and that loopholes, unfair tax evasions and tax advantages are prudently closed.

In Bill C-30, our government will move forward to implement measures that will limit the benefit of employee stock option deductions for employees of large and well-established corporations. Stock options are valuable and important incentives for newly funded firms, such as tech firms or start-ups, to pay their employees as they grow the business while cash flow, or as it should be referred to free cash flow, is very low. I know how important entrepreneurs are, and how they create jobs and take on risk, and they should be rewarded. However, for well-established firms the tax advantages offered by stock options should be limited. I advocated for this differential treatment of stock options. It is a large measure for tax fairness, which I am very glad to see in Bill C-30.

In line with our allies such as France, Italy and the United Kingdom, we will move forward with the implementation of a digital tax. Bill C-30 proposes implementing a digital services tax, at a rate of 3%, on revenue from digital services that rely on data and content contributions from Canadian users. The measure would apply to large businesses with gross revenues of 750 million euros or more. It would come into effect by January 1, 2022, and is anticipated to raise approximately $3.4 billion.

We will continue to provide tools and resources to the CRA as it combats tax evasion to ensure everyone pays their fair share.

Our government continues to strengthen the disability tax credit and related programs used by Canadians with special abilities. Bill C-30 proposes to remove the time limit for a registered disability savings plan to remain registered after the cessation of a beneficiary's eligibility for the disability tax credit, and to modify rent and bond repayment obligations. This again fulfills a promise of our government to the disability community. As noted in budget 2021, an expansion of the disability tax credit would take place to provide further support and expansion to the number of disabled Canadians eligible for the DTC.

Bill C-30 implements our budget promise with a major expansion to the Canada workers benefit of nearly $9 billion over six years and $1.7 billion annually. Approximately one million additional hard-working Canadians will benefit, and 100,000 are estimated to be lifted out of poverty with a strengthened CWB. We have a moral obligation to ensure that work allows individuals to live in dignity. We know how important the dignity of work is, but we need to ensure that individuals who are working hard are not falling behind. I have long favoured the Canada workers benefit as an effective income support measure. Along with prior enhancements to the program, namely in budget 2018, approximately three million Canadians will now benefit from this program. The CWB's effectiveness was strengthened with automatic enrolment for the non-refundable credit via the Canada Revenue Agency, which ensures all Canadians who are entitled to the credit will receive it.

In conjunction with the CWB increase, it is great to see that the minimum wage for federally regulated workers will be set at $15 per hour and adjusted upward annually on the basis of the consumer price index in Canada.

Bill C-30 implements a number of measures for seniors and students, both of whom we know have been impacted by COVID‑19 in different ways. For students, Bill C-30 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and also the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. These amendments will provide students with approximately $3 billion in relief. In addition, no students will have to begin repaying their loans until they earn $40,000 per year. Combined, these measures will support an additional 121,000 students.

I wish to end by discussing our seniors, including my parents Rocco and Vincenza. These people built our country. They sacrificed, worked hard and built the strong foundations we now rely on. We know that our seniors, including my parents, helped build our country and sacrificed so much. Their fiscal prudence, work ethic and ingenuity continue to inspire me today.

We will fulfill our promise to raise old age security by 10% for seniors 75 years of age and older effective June 2022. This measure will benefit 3.3 million seniors, and is a $12 billion investment in our seniors over the next five years.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put some thoughts on the record with respect to Bill C-30. I want to thank my colleague from Foothills for splitting his time with me.

In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, or CKL for short, agriculture, agri-food and agri-food processing is a bedrock element of our local economy, just like for the previous speaker.

I want to begin my comments here. Before proceeding, I would also note that as a father of four daughters, my desire is that they face no glass ceilings in their careers. I want to congratulate the finance minister on being the first female finance minister to deliver a budget. My youngest daughter Kiana just completed her masters in economics, and so maybe, one day, she, too, will deliver a budget, hopefully one based on solid economics rather than election politics.

Back to agriculture, the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system is a key driver of our economy and generates $143 billion, accounts for 7.4% of our GDP, and provides for one in eight jobs, at least in 2018, and more than that this year.

This budget does include some provisions for up $100 million for rebates from the carbon tax for on-farm natural gas and propane use. At the agriculture and agri-food committee, we are presently finishing a review of Bill C-206, sponsored by my colleague, the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South, which proposes an exemption from the carbon tax for on-farm propane and natural gas.

No doubt the existence of this private member's bill influenced the government's decision to include this measure. We discussed, and continue to discuss, at committee the utility of a rebate versus an exemption system. Farmers in my riding and indeed farmers all across Canada can thank Conservatives for this initiative appearing in the budget. Nevertheless, it is good to see that this issue is acknowledged, and that is a positive.

I also want to acknowledge monies targeted to agriculture in the form of incentives as part of programming to address climate initiatives. Practically speaking, though, the costs alone of fossil fuels, of nitrogen fertilizers is enough to encourage their judicious use. Despite that, innovation and environmental responsibility have always been hallmarks of our ag sector.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has acknowledged, present viable, scalable technologies that reduce agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions are presently lacking. Given that, incentives to encourage development and innovation are far better tools than punitive taxes, as many witnesses at the committee have testified.

However, if there is one measure that has the potential to move the needle in the adoption of technology in the ag sector, it is the expansion of high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. The further adoption of precision agriculture, a key technology to build on ag's strong track record of environmental responsibility, is so often hindered by the lack of high-speed Internet access, and the previous speaker echoed these comments.

While the $1 billion amount announced for the universal broadband fund pales in comparison to other funding promises, it is the increased use of this technology that does have the potential to lower ag greenhouse gas emissions.

Given all the attention that the deficit of connectivity in rural and remote areas has attracted over the years, all of the promises, all of the election pledges, even before COVID-19, should have led to the ag sector, and indeed all rural Canadians, using world-class broadband infrastructure by now.

To quote a recent Western Producer editorial, “They didn't and we don't.” The parallels between promises of increased high-speed access and national child care programs are eerily similar, often announced and seldom delivered.

Specifically, I want to point out the situation in my riding of Pelee Island. While the most southerly inhabited point in Canada, it can be considered as remote as, if not more remote than, many parts of our north. There is no reliable 911 service. As it currently stands, Pelee Island has no broadband Internet available to the public. Internet speed on the island is either dial-up or slow cellular hubs for existing businesses, residents and visitors with huge costs associated for small amounts of data. Stormy weather disrupts this service. Pelee Island is the very definition of remote, with only boat and air access in summer, in good weather, and only air access in winter, again, in good weather.

My riding lies in southwestern Ontario, a region serviced by the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology, or SWIFT for short. Ten per cent of Canada's underserved broadband area resides in southwestern Ontario.

Therefore, under the government's previous connect to innovate, CTI, program, SWIFT's share of funding should have amounted to $58.5 million, yet the amount received was zero, not a penny. Similar to the structure of the previous CTI program, the government has chosen to administer the present universal broadband fund with no pro rata share provisions for under-serviced areas. This budget contains spending measures of $509 billion, over half a trillion dollars, but Canadians were looking for a budget with a plan for growth, for investment in infrastructure and a budget with a debt management plan to recover from the huge impacts of COVID.

I recently surveyed my constituents on a host of issues. Specifically on the statement that small businesses are the key to economic rebound in Canada, and 87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Only 13% agreed or strongly agreed that multinational corporations were the key to our economic recovery. My constituents and all Canadians were looking not for a government-led spending plan, but a budget investing in infrastructure and creating the climate for a business-led recovery. The small businesses that I relate to in Chatham and Leamington, Blenheim, Ridgetown and many other towns in Chatham-Kent—Leamington need the confidence that their government will manage the country's finances well, so that the climate into which they invest is stable and predictable.

While this budget talks about some small investments in infrastructure and necessary measures to support small businesses affected by government, what this budget does not contain is a plan to pay for all of the election promises. There are no tax reforms, no financial guardrails anchored to fixed thresholds, no targets and no path to balance. These are the kinds of measures that give small business the confidence to invest and lead our recovery, and that is this budget's greatest failure.

Is this the spending legacy that we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? Last June I had the pleasure of announcing in the House the birth of my first grandchild. I also stated at the time that it was estimated that her share of the federal interest-bearing debt would be over $39,300 at fiscal year end. I was wrong. According to the budget just tabled, her share of the debt as of March 31 is over $43,300 and the budget predicts that her share of the debt five years from now will grow to over $50,700.

Here is what really scares me. Today's budget has assumed an average interest rate-carrying cost on our present debt of 1.2%. Yes, today's interest rates are low, but these budget assumptions assume that the average carrying cost will only rise to 1.9% five years from now. This assumption is inconsistent with how the government is funding its annual deficits. The government is printing money to finance its spending and every time in the past when governments have done this, the economy experiences inflation. In fact, we already are.

Asset inflation is here, as anyone who is trying to buy a house or a two-by-four already knows, and the Consumer Price Index is sure to follow. What follows inflation? It is higher interest rates as the government tries to rein in inflation and prop up its currency, so I have very little faith that interest rates will average 1.9% on the government debt five years from now.

Who does this hurt? People who have assets with low debt like this scenario, but for those working for a paycheque, their wages seldom keep up to rising costs. Everyday Canadians do not want this inflationary future, so this budget, with so much unfocused inflationary spending, cannot be supported. We will hear the usual refrains from government members that we Conservatives want to have our cake and eat it, too. Conservatives have supported and will continue to support measures to support Canadians and small business, but not the reckless, uncontrolled spending without a plan for our grandchildren.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

I have been listening with great interest to my colleagues' speeches on Bill C-30, and I am pleased to have a turn to speak to this important legislation.

Much like budget 2021, this bill focuses on finishing the fight against COVID-19, healing the financial, social, emotional and physical wounds caused by the pandemic, and creating more jobs and prosperity for Canadians across the country. The purpose of Bill C‑30 is to help Canada build back better and become a fairer and more equitable country.

We need to rebuild, but not haphazardly. We need to make sure that we address the gaps that the pandemic has exposed and even exacerbated. As we rebuild, we must protect the most vulnerable.

When I mention vulnerable people, I am thinking, for example, of the elderly. The COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating effects on our seniors. Since day one, I have received calls from seniors in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. They were worried about the situation and all the measures that were being implemented to ensure our communities’ safety. They were anxious about not seeing their families and their friends. They were preoccupied about the impacts that the situation would have on their finances.

That is why, building back better also means ensuring that we protect the health and well-being of seniors in our communities. After a life of hard work, they deserve a safe and dignified retirement without financial worries. This question must be asked: What can be done to help them? More and more of them are living longer than before, and many of them rely on their monthly old age security benefits.

It is in that spirit that our government has reduced the age of eligibility for old age security from 67 to 65. We made sure that seniors, including those who are more vulnerable, can live their retirement in dignity. With Bill C-30, we are implementing another of our government’s commitments, which is to increase the amount of benefits for seniors aged 75 and over.

Seniors become more vulnerable with age, especially when it comes to their financial situation. Indeed, Canadians are living longer and longer, and many of them rely on old age security.

That is why Bill C‑30 proposes to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase these monthly payments by 10% for seniors aged 75 or over. By giving an increase to those 75 or older, we are providing targeted support. In practical terms, this would give seniors in this group greater financial security at a time in their lives when they face increased care expenses and a greater risk of running out of savings. The increase will be implemented in July of next year.

In the meantime, to address immediate needs, the 2021 budget also proposes to provide a one‑time payment of $500 in August of this year to old age security pensioners who will be 75 or older in June 2022. The targeted increase to old age security will really improve the lives of people who deserve more support, especially single seniors who are struggling to make ends meet, like Solange, Antoinette and Leonardo, who live in my riding.

This would increase benefits for about 3.3 million seniors across the country. For those receiving the full benefit, it would mean an additional $766 in annual benefits in the first year, which would be indexed to inflation thereafter. I am thinking of Jeannine, who lives in my riding. She lives alone, and this money would help her buy all the food she needs instead of going without meals to pay her rent.

I believe that our society has a duty to do more to support seniors. That was true before the pandemic and will still be true afterward. COVID‑19 has laid bare society's vulnerabilities and inequalities in Canada and around the world.

Seniors have felt this on a financial level. Many have run into economic hardship as they took on extra costs to stay safe. They have also faced social challenges. Many seniors in the Alfred-Pellan community and across the country spent the past year isolated from their family and friends. For far too many of them, COVID‑19 has been tragic. I am thinking particularly of those living in long-term care facilities. They have been the overwhelming casualties of the pandemic in Canada.

In fact, another thing the pandemic exposed is the systemic problems that affect long-term care facilities across the country. The situation in these institutions was such that the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to lend a hand to the teams on site. My riding was not spared, and I had the opportunity to meet the soldiers deployed to the long-term care centres in Laval. I am grateful for their work.

The pandemic has laid bare a rather dire situation, which is why I am so pleased to see that budget 2021 proposes to provide $3 billion over five years to support the provinces and territories in ensuring standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made when necessary.

I know that many people are worried about this measure, but I want to assure those who are wary that our government will work with the provinces and territories and respect their jurisdiction over health care. We must protect seniors and improve their quality of life, no matter where in the country they live. This is true for long-term care facilities, which is why this investment is so important.

It is also true for seniors who still live at home. That is why budget 2021 proposes to launch the age well at home initiative to help Canadians age in dignity. With this investment, community organizations could provide practical support to low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors. For example, the program would support initiatives to pair seniors with volunteers who would help them prepare meals, do housekeeping, run errands, do odd jobs around the house or even help them get outside their home.

This kind of support is what Miguel and Jane from my riding need to allow them to stay in their home. Their kids help, but additional support is much needed. This help is particularly useful to elderly people with no children to look after them, like Anne and John.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all Canadians and the economic impacts of the situation are undeniable. However, the consequences have not been the same for everyone. Our government’s recovery plan puts people first, but focuses on the groups that have been most affected by the situation.

Canadians have been combatting COVID‑19 for over a year now. We are all tired, but we cannot give up. Now is the time to finish the fight against COVID‑19, get back on our feet and secure the recovery by protecting the most vulnerable. This is certainly true for seniors, who deserve to live out their retirement in dignity.

I therefore support Bill C‑30 and urge all members to do the same.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, which would implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021.

At the outset, it bears recognizing that budget 2021 is unlike most budgets tabled in the House throughout Canada’s short but storied history. Much has been written about the length of the budget, and, yes, it is the longest budget in our history. It is also the first federal budget in Canadian history to be tabled by a woman finance minister, a glass ceiling long overdue for shattering, and it does come with over two years past since the previous budget, budget 2019.

Budget 2021 is truly one of a kind, one might say unprecedented, much like these last two years have been, as Canadians persevere through the worst global pandemic health crisis in recent memory. This unique budget responds to these unique times, the serious challenges created and exacerbated by COVID-19. It lays the foundation for a more prosperous future, a more inclusive future, a greener future and a future that we can be proud to pass on to our kids and grandkids, knowing that we seized the moment and emerged from this dark period in our history with a bold vision for a better Canada and the courage to act on it.

While it is prudent for the government to begin charting our path out of this pandemic, that is not to say that it is yet behind us, far from it. In fact, today, here in Nova Scotia, we are under lockdown. Our schools and shops have moved online, and strict gathering restrictions are in effect; this, as the third wave and its more dangerous, more contagious variants are hammering Nova Scotia with its highest daily case rates of COVID-19 since the start of this pandemic. It is a reminder to all of us how quickly things can change, even with leadership that listens to and respects the expert advice of public health officials.

Not long ago, Nova Scotia was the envy of Canada, with low cases and no community transmission. All it took was one thoughtless group of interprovincial travellers and, just like that, COVID-19 began to spread across our province like wildfire.

We are in a race. It is variants versus vaccines.

That is why on the morning of my birthday, as soon as I became eligible, I signed up for the first vaccine I could, the AstraZeneca. Yesterday, I got my first jab at Boyd’s Pharmasave, a new pharmacy in north end Halifax, opened by Greg Richard and celebrated for its inclusive approach to pharmacy, particularly for the LGBTQ2+ people. I thank Greg.

Getting vaccinated and defeating COVID-19 are the first steps to the economic recovery outlined in this budget. The sooner everyone is vaccinated; the sooner life returns to something more like normal, the sooner we are safe, the sooner we can hug our loved ones, the sooner our businesses can open up again and the sooner we can all go back to work.

As our vaccine rollout continues on schedule, putting Canada consistently in the top three of the G20 for vaccines administered by population, budget 2021 would extend our substantial and effective COVID-19 financial aid programs to Canadians and to the businesses at which they work and upon which they rely.

A year ago, when COVID-19 ground Canada to a sudden halt, the impact on our daily lives and our local economies was immediate. Our government sprang into action. From day one, we promised we would be there for Canadians, and that is exactly what we have done.

Here are the numbers to prove it: nine million Canadians received the Canada emergency response benefit, putting food on the table for out-of-work families; $2 billion for businesses and non-profits through the emergency rent subsidy; 4.4 million Canadian jobs protected through the emergency wage subsidy; and $8 out of every $10 in financial aid to Canadians through this pandemic has come via our federal government.

We promised we would be there for Canadians for as long as it takes, and this budget keeps that promise.

First, the budget will extend flexible access to EI benefits for one more year until the fall of 2022. These changes have made it easier for Canadians to qualify for higher benefits sooner. Next, we will be extending the Canada recovery benefit until September 25 to cover Canadians who do not qualify EI, like self-employed and gig workers. The budget also includes new measures for low-income workers, a significant $8.9-billion investment to expand the Canada workers benefit for one million Canadians, lifting one hundred thousand people out of poverty. Other parties have talked about it, but we are the ones doing it. This budget will introduce a $15-an-hour federal minimal wage.

For businesses being asked to lockdown to help stop the spread, like those in my riding today, the budget will extend the Canada emergency rent subsidy to the end of September. For businesses that have seen a drop in revenue because of COVID-19, the budget will also extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy to the end of September. We are going further, introducing a brand new program we are calling the Canada hiring benefit. For businesses experiencing a decline in revenues, this subsidy will make it easier for businesses to hire back laid-off workers or to bring on new ones.

All told, these investments are our plan to support Canadians in regaining the one million jobs lost to the pandemic. We have done it before, and we will do it again.

The pandemic has exposed an urgent need for national action on child care. From the day our finance minister assumed that office, she has made it clear that fighting the so-called “she-cession” is a priority of our feminist government. We cannot allow the legacy of this pandemic to be the scaling back of all the hard-fought advances that women have made in workforce.

That is why budget 2021 makes a generational investment to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Our plan aims to slash fees for parents with children in regulated child care by half on average by 2022, with the goal of reaching $10 per day child care on average by 2026. This is a necessary investment, one that is a long time coming. While other parties have talked about doing it, we are the ones actually doing it, putting $30 billion on the table to finally get this done for Canadian families.

I come to the House from a long career in city planning in the public, private and academic sectors, including in my hometown of Halifax, the riding I am now honoured to represent as a member of Parliament. That career showed me first-hand and up close how vitally important housing was to a community. Without access to housing that is safe, secure, dignified and at a price people can afford, every other goal a person has in life becomes secondary.

I made the jump into politics in 2015, and became the first city planner elected to this place, because I believed the federal government needed to do more to support the communities Canadians called home, to help undo the decade of neglect by the previous government when it came to community investment, including in affordable housing.

We spared no time getting to work, and today Canadians have a federal government that is finally making the necessary investments in housing. The national housing strategy, released in 2017, has already delivered $25 billion in housing projects, and remains on track to reach $70 billion by 2027-28.

At home in Halifax, as our population rapidly grows, so does the need for more affordable housing. I recently announced the new Canada-Nova Scotia targeted housing benefit, which provides $200 a month to qualifying, low-income, vulnerable individuals to help pay for housing.

To help increase housing supply, our federal government has made major investments in Halifax so far this year, including $8.6 million under the rapid housing initiative to create 52 units in Halifax via three projects in partnership with the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, the North End Community Health Centre and Adsum for Women and Children.

Because of the success of the rapid housing initiative which, as its title suggests, invests in projects that can create affordable housing quickly, budget 2021 proposes a $1.5 billion top-up to this program. This funding will create up to 4,500 permanent, affordable homes on top of the 4,700 we already have built under this initiative, all within 12 months.

This budget recognizes that building an equitable Canada requires targeted investments that support marginalized communities. To continue down the path of reconciliation, this budget invests $18 billion in indigenous communities, including another $6 billion for infrastructure and $2.2 billion to end the tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls once and for all.

To fight systemic racism and empower under-represented communities, the budget makes a number of substantial investments, including $200 million toward the Black-led philanthropic endowment fund to support Black-led charities and organizations serving youth; new funding to combat hate and racism during COVID-19, particularly against Asian Canadians; and enhancing the communities at risk security infrastructure program to protect communities at risk of hate-motivated crimes.

For our seniors, we are building on our progress made; 25% fewer seniors live in poverty than when we took office in 2015. Budget 2021 goes even further by increasing old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older. Today, our investments in senior benefits are over double our expenditure in the Canada child benefit. By 2026, our investments in seniors will surpass the total expenditure of the Canada health transfer and equalization payments combined.

This is a historic budget. Certainly, its size makes it difficult to speak to all the important investments it proposes. In short, this is the budget that will lead Canada out of the pandemic, chart our economic recovery and build a brighter tomorrow. I hope all members in the House will join me in voting in favour.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to virtually participate in today’s debate on the budget implementation act, as this is an important piece of legislation, which I believe we need to pass swiftly in order to deliver much-needed support to my constituents in Scarborough Centre.

Budget 2021 is an important and transformative plan, and Bill C-30 begins the process of putting this vision into action. It is a vision that recognizes where we are today, which is not yet through a pandemic that is still causing real challenges for many. It also recognizes the need to be ready for a post-pandemic Canada and begin laying the foundation for an economic recovery that would ensure no one in our country is left behind.

In Scarborough Centre, we are in the grip of the third wave. Most of our community is a designated COVID hot spot. Residents are eager to be vaccinated, and with more and more vaccines flowing into Canada every week, thanks to the diligent work of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, vaccination rates are steadily rising. Vaccinations are a team Canada effort, and I am proud of how the federal and provincial governments are working together. I am especially proud of the hard work being done by local health authorities and our frontline health workers.

It is clear to me that there is still the need to support small businesses and individual Canadians through this pandemic. My community is one of small businesses. If one drives along Lawrence Avenue East from Victoria Park to Bellamy, they will not see any national chains. They will see countless family-owned and family-run restaurants, convenience stores and small groceries. These businesses are struggling and they still need our help.

Budget 2021 answers that call. We will extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support until September 25, allowing businesses to keep staff on payroll and pay the rent as the pandemic curtails revenues. We will also improve the Canada small business financing program designed for small and medium-sized businesses by expanding loan eligibility, increasing loan maximums and expanding program eligibility.

The budget also continues important support for individuals and families by providing up to 12 additional weeks of Canada recovery benefit support and expanding availability until September 25. We are committing to maintaining flexible access to employment insurance benefits for another year and extending the EI sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks.

Since the beginning of this pandemic more than a year ago, our government has been firm in its commitment to all Canadians. We will be there support them for as long as it takes. At the same time, budget 2021 looks ahead to a post-pandemic Canada and to laying the foundation for Canada to build back stronger, with a recovery that all Canadians can be a part of.

This pandemic has not impacted everyone equally. While I have been privileged to be able to work from home, many of my constituents cannot. Those with essential jobs, or jobs that cannot be done remotely, have to keep going into work. They stock our grocery shelves and cook our take-out meals. They sort and deliver our online orders. They expose themselves to greater risk, both in their workplaces and during their commutes. They are lower income and often from racialized communities. COVID has hit these communities harder.

The pandemic has also had a greater impact on women. Last summer, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we studied the impact of the pandemic on women. We heard how the pandemic has led to women taking on more caregiving responsibilities within the household, especially in intergenerational households, both for children now doing virtual learning, as well as older parents needing care.

One of the key messages we heard was the importance of access to quality and affordable early learning and child care as part of any post-COVID recovery. As the first wave of the pandemic receded last summer and people began to return to work, we saw that women who had lost their jobs were not returning to work at nearly the same rate men were. One of the reasons is access to child care, and not all families can even afford child care when it is available.

This is not just a social issue; it is also an economic issue. If our economy is going to return to previous levels and grow, we need both men and women to be able to choose to participate in the workforce. A lack of access to child care is a major barrier to labour market access for some Black, indigenous, racialized and newcomer women.

The words of Armine Yalnizyan, an economist and the Atkinson fellow on the future of workers, really resonated with me. She said:

...there will be no recovery without a she-covery and no she-covery without child care. Let me be really clear. If we don't do this, we are actually voting to move towards economic depression—and not a recession but a prolonged contraction of GDP—by policy design.

Our budget’s plan for early learning and child care is not just innovative social policy. It is a necessity for our post-pandemic economic recovery. When women can choose to participate fully in the workforce, it is easier for businesses to access the labour and talent they need to grow their business.

When I was a mother of young children, as my husband and I were just beginning our lives here in Canada, we could not afford quality child care. I had no choice but to stay home and put off entering the workforce and beginning my career in Canada. I cherish the time I got to spend with my boys in their early years, but I want women today to be able to have the choice to make the decision that is best for them. It is their choice, and I support them whatever it is, but I want them to have a choice. This is a policy whose time has come.

We must also recognize the impact this pandemic has had on seniors. My riding is home to many long-term care homes, which I always enjoyed visiting before the pandemic. It has been painful to see how they have suffered over the past year. Budget 2021 proposes to invest $3 billion, working with the provinces to develop national standards for long-term care, and improve the safety and quality of life for seniors in care.

I was recently able to announce over one million dollars in joint federal-provincial funding to help two long-term care homes in my riding to improve their air quality and ventilation systems. This is vitally important funding that will keep seniors safer and healthier, as well as the hard-working staff. I am so glad to see the federal and provincial governments working on this. This is what we owe our seniors, and I hope this co-operation can continue to work to develop national standards.

Since we took office in 2015, 25% fewer seniors are living in poverty. With budget 2021, we are building on that progress by increasing OAS by 10% for seniors age 75 and over, which will help lift even more seniors out of poverty.

We are also providing needed assistance for our youth, who have seen major disruptions to learning during this pandemic. With budget 2021, we are extending the waiver of interest accrual on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans until March 31, 2023. We will also double Canada student grants and create new training and work opportunities for young Canadians, so they gain valuable skills and experience in the workforce. Our youth are our future. We must support them and set them up with the tools and support they need to succeed.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these important initiatives passed, so our constituents have the support they need to make it through this pandemic and build back stronger than before.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I say again in appreciation this morning that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the QayQayt First Nation and the Coast Salish Peoples.

Yesterday, I mentioned that this pandemic had been a tale of two countries: one is a country where billionaires have seen their wealth increase by $78 billion and where banks received $750 billion in liquidity supports, and the other is a country where people are struggling.

That is the fundamental issue we have to think about as we implement the budget through the passage of Bill C‑30.

I spoke yesterday about the impacts of this pandemic. I spoke of businesses closing their doors forever. These are small community businesses, family-run businesses and community businesses that struggled to maintain themselves during the pandemic. I spoke about the front-line workers, health care workers and first responders, all of whom have shown incredible tenacity and courage while going about their jobs of making sure as many lives are preserved as possible through this pandemic. We mourn the 24,000 Canadians who have died so far in this pandemic.

I also spoke yesterday, and want to engage today, on what has happened to the vast majority of Canadians through this pandemic. The government, through Bill C-30, is basically doing a victory lap. It is saying, even as this third wave crashes upon our shores, that we need to scale back on supports that are given to Canadians.

This contrasts vividly with the remarkable speed with which the government stepped in, within four days of the pandemic hitting, and provided the banking sector with $750 billion in liquidity supports. The government's first priority, coming through the pandemic, was to make sure that bank profits were maintained. That is a source of shame that should last for the entire government mandate.

However, to the credit of Canadian democracy, in a minority Parliament the NDP caucus was able to shift the government's priority from banks and billionaires to putting in place programs that would make a difference for people. These included the emergency response benefit, support for students, support for seniors and support for people with disabilities, which I will come back to because it is full of holes and simply inadequate to meet their needs, as are many of the programs that we forced the government to put into place. We also forced the government to ensure sick leave and put in place a wage subsidy to maintain jobs and maintain businesses. We also fought and pushed for rent relief for small businesses.

All of those things came as a result of NDP pressure. In a minority Parliament, thankfully because of the strength of Canadian democracy, we were able to bring that about. The reality is that there are two countries: one of banks and billionaires, and another of everyone else, where we know that the majority of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency in any given month and we continue to see Canadians struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table and keep roofs over their heads. The growing number of homeless people across our country is a testament to the impact of the pandemic and the inadequacy of the government response.

What does Bill C-30 do? As I mentioned earlier, it basically does a victory lap on all of those supports that the NDP forced the government to put in place. Regarding the response benefit, we see a dramatic cut in July. That is within a few weeks. As this third wave crashes on our shores, we see the government moving to dramatically slash emergency supports. We see that the wage subsidy and rent relief are all going to be phased out over the course of the summer, starting within a few weeks' time, at the very worst time in the pandemic.

We spoke last night about the crisis in Alberta, which is now the worst-hit jurisdiction in all of North America. At this critical time, the government says its job is done, its mission is accomplished and it is going to start withdrawing those supports.

We add to this the impact of government policies, for example CRA going after Canadians who were victims of fraud. We have seen over the past few years numerous cases, including with Desjardins, in which private information was leaked out, and fraudsters used it to apply for CERB in people's names. CRA is demanding repayment from people who never received payments in the first place.

Members will recall that last June the government wanted to go even further. It wanted to put people in jail if somebody else used their private information and defrauded the public. Fraud is a serious issue. The government should have put in place systems to prevent that, but the government overreach of asking people who were victims to pay back moneys they never received is unbelievable. That is how the government is reacting to ordinary people.

What has it done at this unprecedented time? This is the first crisis in Canadian history where the ultra-rich have not been asked to pay their fair share. Through World War II, Canada put in place an excess profits tax and wealth taxes to ensure that, because we were all in this together, everybody had to pay their fair share. Coming out of World War II, after vanquishing Nazism and fascism, we had the wherewithal to make unprecedented investments that led to the most prosperous period in Canadian history. These were investments in housing, education, health care and transportation.

What has happened this time? What has the current government done through this pandemic? It has basically given a free ride to the ultra-rich. Canadian billionaires, who have received over $78 billion in increased wealth, are not being asked to chip in or pay their taxes. There is no wealth tax, even though the PBO estimates that would bring in $10 billion a year. There is no pandemic profits tax, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates it would create $8 billion. That would be enough to eliminate homelessness in our country and ensure the right to housing, a roof over every single Canadian's head, yet the government refuses to do any of that.

The government did put a symbolic luxury tax in place, which is less than 1¢ for every dollar the PBO believes would be raised for the public good if a wealth tax were put into place. Curiously, that is one little symbolic gesture that the Liberals love to wave. They put a tax on yachts, so that means they are taking care of massive inequality, but it is not even in Bill C-30. What we actually see is a shell game. It is smoke and mirrors, with a tiny symbolic luxury tax of less than 1¢ for every dollar that a wealth tax would bring in, and that is not even on the government's radar screen.

It made the commitment and the promise, but as we have seen with so many other promises by the Liberal government, it is simply not worth the paper it is printed on. To reference previous broken promises, we just need to point to public universal pharmacare. Canadians have been waiting on its repeated promises for over 25 years. Regarding child care, we are told this time that the Liberals really mean it, but there are nearly 30 years of broken promises. Regarding boil-water advisories, there is over a decade of broken promises. The government says it really wants to tackle inequality. That is very rich, given that it has not done that either in the budget or in the budget implementation act.

The proposed act includes some curious and somewhat bizarre measures. For example, the budget implementation act acknowledges the increasing poverty of seniors, but says that seniors are only in this crucial poverty over the age of 75. Seniors from 65 to 74 would not get an OAS top-up, but seniors over 75 would. Poverty impacts all seniors, and for the government to discriminate is unacceptable. Also, the government acknowledges that students are having a tough time throughout this pandemic and would waive loan interest payments, but it is still forcing students to pay the principle. Students have to pay their loans back despite having to struggle through the pandemic.

I mentioned earlier the issues for people with disabilities who have struggled unbelievably throughout this pandemic. The NDP fought, not once or twice, but half a dozen times to finally get a one-time payment of $600 for a third of people with disabilities. Of all the fights that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it is the one for people with disabilities that the government resisted the most. Contrast this with the $750 billion given to the Bay Street banks in the blink of an eye. In four days, the government weighed in to maintain bank profits. However, of people with disabilities, who are struggling through this pandemic, who are half of the people who line up at food banks every week and who are many of the homeless in this country, one-third were given a one-time $600 payment. What does Bill C-30 reserve for them? The government has decided that it will do a three-year consultation to figure out whether people with disabilities really have any needs to be met. These people are being asked to wait three years, but it took four days for the government to weigh in with a $750 billion liquidity support bailout package. It is unbelievable, unacceptable and irresponsible.

Members might ask if there are any elements in the budget implementation act that I support. This government, which is so tired and so prone to spinning and acting rather than actually doing what comes with being the government, was struggling for inspiration. I gather somebody in the Prime Minister's Office discovered that they could be inspired by the 2015 NDP election platform. Tom Mulcair went to the public with a commitment for universal child care and a commitment to raise the federal minimum wage. Members will recall that the Prime Minister and Liberals at the time mocked the NDP for bringing these things forward. Well, that is the only thing that has inspired this government now. After six years of failure, the Liberals discovered that maybe the NDP election platform for 2015 was good and copied some of its elements. Now, in good faith, we say to the government let us get going on a minimum wage and let us get going on child care. We are here to make sure these things happen. We do not want this to be yet another empty Liberal platitude and another empty Liberal broken promise. We want to work with this government to make those things realities and not just other commitments or promises that it breaks for a quarter of a century, which has been the history of Liberal governments.

My final point is this. We do not see any real response to the crisis in housing affordability. It was Liberals who ended the national housing program, and they have yet to respond in any meaningful way. We also see the tragic, broken commitment to indigenous peoples and dozens of indigenous communities who do not have safe drinking water, and this government is now putting off any commitment to end the dangerous situation of boil-water advisories for another half decade. What message does that send to indigenous people, and what message does that send to indigenous children?

Bill C-30 has elements showing that the Liberals were able to copy the NDP platform from 2015. They should be inspired more from what the NDP is putting forward today, resolve these issues on behalf of Canadians and end the appalling levels of inequality that we are seeing in this country.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not what we are hearing on the ground. We are hearing a lot of grumbling about the creation of two classes of seniors and the exclusion of seniors aged 65 to 74. From our point of view, this is not being well received on the ground.

I would like to start by informing the House that the Bloc Québécois will support the principle of the bill. We will make amendments in committee and review our position in subsequent votes.

This implementation bill is mammoth in scope. It has 346 pages, four parts, 37 divisions and four schedules. The summary alone is 10 pages long. It goes without saying that it contains tons of measures, like the woolly mammoth, which could weigh up to six tons. We obviously support most of the measures, such as the ones aimed at extending support programs like the wage and rent subsidies.

Given the mammoth scope of the bill and the time I am allotted, I will limit myself to a brief overview, stopping to discuss some of its elements.

Part 1 contains a series of highly technical amendments to the Income Tax Act. It limits the stock option deduction for large companies. It increases the basic personal deduction to $15,000. It prohibits bonuses for senior executives in companies receiving the wage subsidy, and introduces anti-avoidance measures. These are some of the measures we support. Part 2 imposes GST on Internet and Airbnb purchases, which is obviously a good thing.

The bill extends the wage subsidy until September 27, gradually reducing the rates from 75% to 20%, and also allows the minister to extend the program by regulation for two more months, until November 30. During these two months, the minister could also make a regulation concerning eligibility criteria for the wage subsidy as well as its calculation.

This provision sounds like an insurance policy in case the House is dissolved for elections, preventing it from enacting a law that would extend the wage subsidy beyond September 27 if necessary. If you read between the lines, the choice of November 30 gives you an idea of when the current government anticipates the House to be back.

The bill creates a new hiring subsidy program for businesses restarting their activities. The hiring subsidy will be in effect from June 6 to November 20. It will be offered to businesses restarting their activities and hiring or rehiring employees. It could cover up to half of new salaries. Businesses will therefore be able to choose between the hiring subsidy and the wage subsidy, depending on which one benefits them most. These are measures that we support.

As I said in my question to the minister, division 5 of part 4 is a serious problem for us. This section involves the centralization of the securities commission, which infringes on Quebec's jurisdiction. With this division, the federal government is trying to strip Quebec of its financial sector.

Bill C-30 renews and significantly increases the budget of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office to expedite its work. The bill authorizes the government to make payments to the transition office of up to $119,500,000 or any greater amount that may be specified in an appropriation act. The transition office was established in July 2009 to create a single pan-Canadian securities regulator in Toronto.

There have been a number of setbacks before the Supreme Court, which deemed that securities were not under federal jurisdiction. However, Ottawa finally got the green light in 2018—remember it well—to interfere in this jurisdiction provided that it co-operate with the provinces and not act unilaterally. That is what is on paper, so that is the theory. However, as Yogi Berra said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”

If the federal government carried out its plan to establish a pan-Canadian securities regulator in Toronto, we would inevitably see a creep of regulation activities outside Quebec. This plan is just bad and must never see the light of day. This is more than just a dispute over jurisdictions or mere squabbling between Quebec and Ottawa or the federal government and the provinces. This is a battle between Bay Street and Quebec.

I would like to remind the House that everyone is against this in Quebec, including all political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, business communities, the financial sector and labour-sponsored funds. Seldom have we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose a government initiative.

In addition to the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly, economic circles unanimously and vehemently oppose it, including the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Centre corporation, the Desjardins Group, Fonds de solidarité FTQ, as well as most Quebec businesses, like Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco, Molson, and the list goes on.

A strong Quebec Autorité des marchés financiers means a strong talent pool in support of the financial legal framework, a prerequisite to the sector's development.

When the Toronto Stock Exchange bought the Bourse de Montréal, the Commission des valeurs mobilières, the predecessor to the Autorité des marchés financiers, demanded before authorizing the sale that Montreal retain a stock exchange. We know that it specialized in derivatives, including the carbon exchange.

In Quebec, the financial sector represents 150,000 jobs with a contribution of more than $20 billion, or the equivalent of 6.3% of the GDP. Montreal is the 13th largest global financial centre with nearly 100,000 jobs.

The provisions in division 5 are an attack on our ability to keep our head offices and preserve our businesses. We are talking about the Quebec model. The Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses estimates that the 578 head offices in Quebec represent 50,000 jobs with a salary that is twice as high as the Quebec average in addition to 20,000 other jobs at specialized service providers such as accounting, legal, financial or computer services.

Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies in Quebec rely more on globalized supply chains and all the impact that can have on our network of SMEs, in the regions in particular. We saw with the pandemic that globalized supply chains are fragile and make us entirely dependent on foreign supply.

Ultimately, businesses tend to concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their headquarters are located. There is also a branch plant economy and a less innovative economy. These are threats to Quebec.

A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our headquarters and the preservation of our businesses. Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables access to capital markets for businesses, an essential condition to support business investment and growth across Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate division 5 of Bill C-30, by deleting the clause in question. This would be tantamount to cutting off funding for the centralization of Toronto's financial sector. We are sorry, but we will be standing in Bay Street's way.

I will move on to division 8 of part 4.

Division 8 enacts a new act, the retail payment activities act, which would govern all electronic transactions. It applies not only to online payment activities of federally regulated institutions but also to those of all businesses. Even provincial governments are subject to this law.

At this point, we have serious concerns about division 8. In our view, the activities described are essentially private in nature and fall under civil law. Why is Ottawa sticking its nose in? There is also the possibility that the federal legislation may not apply to a non-federally-regulated business in a province that has passed comparable legislation.

The Bloc Québécois and I find this all rather vague. Is this yet another encroachment by Ottawa into the area of financial consumer protection? We have questions. We are going to look into the matter and shed some light on it. Our constituents can count on us.

We all remember a mammoth bill introduced by former minister Morneau that removed the Bay Street financial sector from the Civil Code of Quebec. We managed to get the government to back down and we are ready to do it again, if needed.

I will now move on to division 22.

Here, Bill C-30 amends the Canada Labour Code in an effort to address the issue of contract flipping.

Unfortunately, this contract flipping is still happening in airports. It involves replacing one company with another less expensive one through competitive bidding. What does the new company do? It rehires the same workers to do the same job but with inferior working conditions and wages. That is unacceptable. It is straight out of another century. It is time for that to change.

We welcome that division of the bill. However, it seems that it refers only to pay and not to all of the social benefits and other benefits set out in the collective agreement. In fact, the collective agreement does not seem to be transferred. We will therefore continue to examine that division of the bill and possibly make some improvements.

Next, I want to talk about division 23, which increases minimum wage to $15 an hour. Obviously, we applaud that initiative. The Bloc Québécois is always in favour of improving the quality of life and working conditions of Quebeckers and Canadians. However, members need to be aware that only a minority of workers, or approximately 26,000 Canadians, will be able to get that wage increase, because the Canada Labour Code applies only to federally regulated sectors, so this measure is nothing too spectacular.

Division 25 provides for a payment to Quebec to offset the cost of aligning the Quebec parental insurance plan. For once, Quebec may not have to fight for its share of the funding allocated to a program it opted out of. We hope Ottawa will remember this way of doing things and do it more often. That would be nice sometimes instead of always wasting time haggling over money for social housing, roads and lots of other things, money that takes years to get transferred. We applaud what is being done here.

I will move on to division 32, which is about old age security, but before I talk about old age security, what do we have here in division 32? A $500 cheque for people 75 and over this summer, right before the election. People probably remember how Duplessis gave folks refrigerators so they would not forget which side to vote for. Well done, Liberals. Duplessis used to say that heaven was blue and hell was red. Unfortunately, the Liberals cannot appropriate that particular Duplessis slogan.

As I said earlier, division 32 will increase old age security by 10% for those aged 75 and over, not this summer, but in the summer of 2022. That is $63 more per month. I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois is asking for an increase of $110 per month for all seniors aged 65 and over, starting immediately. This would bring Canada back in line with the OECD average. Canada would still lag far behind Europe.

On that topic, I would like to quote the economic analyst Gérald Fillion. In a very interesting article he wrote recently in response to the budget, he said, and I quote:

Two questions come to mind. First, why not increase old age security by 10% as of this year? Second, why do these measures apply only to seniors aged 75 and over? Why not those aged 65 and over?

Those are very legitimate questions that we too want to ask the government. The FADOQ network and seniors' groups in Quebec also spoke out against this approach. Gérald Fillion made a number of points. He noted that, in Canada, people's income drops precipitously when they retire. The technical term is net pension replacement rate, which was 50.7% of pre-retirement income in Canada in 2018. That translates into roughly half as much after retirement.

Across the OECD, that rate is seven percentage points higher. In the European Union, it is 63%. The figures are therefore 50%, 57% and 63%. These data are from a study of 49 countries, among which Canada ranks 32nd, well behind countries such as Italy, India, France and Denmark, and just slightly above the United States, where inequality is surging. That is not impressive. These statistics are alarming, so we must take action. Seniors were the first victims of the pandemic, and there was already inequality before the pandemic.

Gérald Fillion concluded his article by saying:

Considering Canada's poor showing in the OECD ranking, it would have made sense for the 10% increase to begin this year and apply as of age 65 and for this issue to be free from electioneering.

Improving old age security starting not this summer, but next summer, is what we are talking about. To reiterate our position, we are proposing $110 a month starting at age 65 to bring us in line with the OECD average. It is hardly a revolutionary proposal.

I will now move on to division 34, which deals with child care services. The government is giving itself the right to compensate a province that wishes to opt out of the federal early learning and child care program. That is obviously what Quebec would like to do.

However, the Bloc Québécois wants guarantees. This spending authority seems to be valid only for the current fiscal year and for a maximum transfer of $3 billion per province.

In the budget, but not the bill, there are different program objectives, and the budget also raises the possibility of an asymmetrical bilateral agreement with Quebec.

As everyone knows, the bill covers only this year. Is that until asymmetrical agreements are signed? Can the government finally guarantee that Quebec will receive full compensation every year, without conditions, for what it has been doing since 1997? That is what we want, and that is what we are asking for.

I would like to remind members that the new pan-Canadian child care program is another federal intrusion. Family policies and all associated programs are the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is clearly a good policy, a worthwhile, feminist policy, but it is still an intrusion.

I will now move on to divisions 35 and 36, which grant 12 additional weeks of the Canada recovery benefit, bringing us to September 25 of this year. The total number of weeks is now increased to 50, which is a good thing. For the first four additional weeks, recipients will receive $500 a week. For the other eight weeks, the maximum will be reduced to $300, starting July 18. This division also extends the Canada recovery caregiving benefit by four weeks to a maximum of 42 weeks, providing $500 a week in the event that caregiving options are not sufficiently available. The maximum number of weeks for which the benefit can be paid to people living at the same address is 42.

The bill contains several measures, including extending EI benefits, which may be prescribed by regulation and extended until November 20, if necessary; maintaining EI eligibility at 420 hours; and extending the maximum length of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks starting in the summer. I do not mean this summer, but the one following the election. This measure continues to penalize people who are fighting cancer, for example, and need more weeks of benefits. It does not take into account the order that the House gave the government to extend the benefit period to 50 weeks. Twenty-six weeks is better than 15, but that was not what the House voted for.

I remind members that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. Although we believe the budget contains some worthwhile measures, it overlooked the key issues, namely proper funding for health care and proper support for seniors.

The Bloc Québécois also denounces the government's decision to use the budget to set up infrastructure that would enable it to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. The budget provides for frameworks for mental health care, women's health and reproductive health. These are all the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

The budget also provides for a framework for extracting the minerals needed for the green transition. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, the government is once again talking about a Canadian securities regulator. The budget also talks about a federal office for recognizing foreign credentials, which is not a federal jurisdiction. There is also mention of a Canadian water agency and a federal framework for skills training. Whenever Quebec or the provinces do something good, Ottawa tries to latch on, even though it is not able to take care of its own jurisdictions.

This is all very troubling. All of these measures, frameworks and policies do not represent significant amounts in the budget, but they reflect the government's intention to set up the infrastructure to keep moving in this direction. We will be keeping an eye on the government, that is for sure. The government's vision is to control specific areas that, according to the Constitution, fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has the power to spend, and that enables it to stick its nose into everybody's business, but as a result, we are becoming less and less of a federation with provincial autonomy and more and more of a centralized country where everything happens in Ottawa. The federal government could not care less about the provincial autonomy that Quebec holds so dear. The provinces are being starved. With health care costs rising and Ottawa refusing to co-operate, Quebec and the provinces have no more room to manoeuvre. If they want some breathing room, they need to turn to Ottawa, which will tell them how to do things. That is very troubling.

Madam Speaker, I see you indicating that my time is up. I will—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank colleagues for their patience with my Internet difficulties today. I apologize and I do really appreciate their forbearance.

Small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy and of every main street in Canada. Lockdowns, though necessary, have hit them hardest. To heal the wounds left by COVID, we have to put a small business rescue plan into action as well as a long-term plan to help them grow.

In addition to extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support, we also have to make sure that the hardest-hit businesses pivot back to growth and stay on track.

Bill C-30 proposes the new Canada recovery hiring program, which will run from June to November and make it easier for businesses to hire back laid-off employees or to hire new workers. We also intend to invest up to $4 billion to help up to 160,000 small and medium-sized businesses buy and adopt the new technologies they need to grow. We will encourage businesses to invest in themselves by allowing for the immediate expensing of up to $1.5 million of eligible investments by Canadian-controlled private corporations in each of the next three years.

Small businesses need access to financing in order to invest in people and innovation and to have the space to operate and grow. That is why Bill C-30 enhances the Canada small business financing program through amendments to the Canada Small Business Financing Act. This will mean broader eligibility and increased loan limits.

In 2021, job growth is green growth. This budget sets out an ambitious and realistic plan to help Canada get to net-zero emissions, and it puts in place the funding to achieve our 25% land and marine conservation targets by 2025. At the same time, we will make targeted investments in transformational technologies, helping our business growth and making us more productive and competitive around the world.

The hard and essential work of reconciliation continues. This budget commits to investing $18 billion over the next five years to narrow gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, to support safe, healthy communities and to advance reconciliation. We are committing to investing $6 billion to improve infrastructure in indigenous communities.

Bill C-30 earmarks $2.2 billion to flow through the federal gas tax fund, renamed more appropriately the Canada community-building fund, to communities across Canada. Cities and towns have faced steep revenue declines because of COVID. This funding will help them maintain and build the local infrastructure on which Canadians depend.

Collaboration with all levels of government across Canada has been and will continue to be the cornerstone of our team Canada response to this pandemic. Together, we will finish the fight against COVID and together we will come roaring back.

Bill C-30 is essential if we are to activate our government's recovery plan as presented in budget 2021. Our people and our businesses cannot do without the support measures in this bill. This bill takes unprecedented steps to stimulate future growth.

This plan is about people. It will make a measurable, positive, tangible difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. It is about making concrete, targeted commitments to heal the wounds of COVID, to get us all back to work and to put us on a long-term path toward growth, prosperity and a clean, green future.

I urge all members to join me in supporting the speedy passage of this essential legislation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to join this debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have done everything necessary to protect Canadians’ health and safety, to help businesses weather the storm and to position our country for a strong recovery. After 14 months of uncertainty and hardship, Canadians continue to fight COVID-19 with determination and courage.

Right now we are being hit hard by the third wave, but we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. More and more Canadians are getting vaccinated. The recovery is around the corner. The bill before us today would implement our plan to finish the fight against COVID-19, create jobs, grow the economy and ensure a robust recovery from which all Canadians would benefit.

The budget I presented to the House on April 19 contains further details about the plan. The budget focuses on middle-class Canadians and seeks to help more Canadians join the middle class. It is also in line with the global shift to a green, clean economy.

This plan will help Canadians and Canadian businesses heal the wounds left by COVID-19 and come back stronger than ever.

This budget meets three fundamental challenges. First, we must conquer COVID. That means buying vaccines and supporting provincial and territorial health care systems. It means enforcing quarantine rules at the border and within the country. It means providing Canadians and Canadian businesses with the support they need to get through these final lockdowns.

Second, we must punch our way out of the COVID recession. That means ensuring that lost jobs are recovered as swiftly as possible and hard-hit businesses rebound quickly. It means providing support where COVID has hit hardest: to women, to young people, to racialized Canadians and low-wage workers, and to small and medium-sized businesses, especially in tourism and hospitality. When fully enacted, this budget will create, in total, nearly 500,000 new training and work opportunities for Canadians.

Third, the major challenge is to build a more resilient Canada: better, more fair, more prosperous and more innovative. That means investing in Canada's green transition and the green jobs that go with it, in Canada's digital transformation and in Canadian innovation, and it means building infrastructure for a dynamic, growing country. This budget invests in social infrastructure and in physical infrastructure. It invests in human capital and in physical capital. It invests in Canadians and it invests in Canada.

Vaccine campaigns are accelerating, and that is such a good thing, but we need to vaccinate even more Canadians even more quickly. Thanks to plentiful and growing vaccine supply, that is something team Canada can get done working together. This legislation proposes a one-time payment of $1 billion to provinces and territories to reinforce and roll out vaccination programs.

Canadians should take advantage of our increasing vaccine supply and, when it is their turn, go and get the first Health Canada-approved vaccine available to them. I was vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine nine days ago at a Toronto pharmacy, and I am so grateful I was able to be vaccinated when it was my turn.

COVID-19 has placed extreme pressure on health care systems across the country. The pandemic is still with us and Canadians do need help urgently. That is why we propose to provide $4 billion through the Canada health transfer to help provinces and territories address immediate health care system pressures.

These funds are in addition to our unprecedented investments in the health care systems during the pandemic, including the $13.8 billion invested in health care under the safe restart agreement.

A full recovery from this pandemic requires new, long-term investments in social infrastructure, from early learning and child care to student grants to income top-ups, so that the middle class can flourish and so that more Canadians can join it.

COVID-19 has brutally exposed what women have long known: Without child care, parents, usually mothers, cannot work outside the home. A cornerstone of our jobs and growth plan is a historic investment of $30 billion over five years, reaching $9.2 billion annually in permanent investments when combined with previous commitments, to build a high-quality, affordable and accessible early learning and child care system across Canada.

Within five years, families everywhere in Canada should have access to high-quality child care for an average of $10 a day. This will help increase parents', and especially women's, participation in the workforce. It will create jobs for child care workers, more than 95% of whom are women. It will give every child in Canada the best possible start in life. Early learning and child care has long been a feminist issue. COVID has shown us that it is an urgent economic issue as well.

As we make this historic commitment, I would like to thank the visionary leaders in Quebec, and in particular Quebec feminists, who led the way for the rest of Canada. I am very grateful to these women.

Of course, the plan also includes additional resources for Quebec that could be used to provide further support for its early learning and child care system, a system that is already the envy of the rest of Canada and, indeed, much of the world.

We also recognize the continuing need to bridge Canadians and Canadian businesses through this tough third wave of the virus and into a full recovery. To date, the Canada emergency wage subsidy has helped more than 5.3 million Canadians keep their jobs. The Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support have helped more than 175,000 organizations with rent, mortgage and other expenses.

The wage subsidy, rent subsidy and lockdown support were set to expire in June 2021. Bill C-30 extends these measures through to September 25, 2021, for a total of $12.1 billion in additional support. Extending the support will mean that millions of jobs will be protected, as they have been throughout this crisis.

To help people who still cannot work, we also propose maintaining flexible access to employment insurance benefits for another year, until fall 2022.

We also plan to extend the number of weeks for certain major income support measures, including the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiver benefit.

We are providing an extra 12 weeks of benefits to recipients of the Canada recovery benefit, which was created to help Canadians who are not eligible for employment insurance.

Bill C-30 also proposes extending the Canada recovery caregiver benefit by 4 weeks, up to a maximum of 42 weeks at $500 a week. This will help when the economy begins its safe reopening.

For caregivers who cannot find a solution, especially those who take care of children, the employment insurance sickness benefit will be extended from 15 to 26 weeks.

Canada's prosperity depends on every Canadian having a fair chance to join the middle class. Low-wage workers in Canada work harder than anyone else in the country and for less pay. In the past year, they have faced both significant infection risks and job losses. Many live below the poverty line, even though they work full time. We are Canadian, and this should not be acceptable to any of us.

Through Bill C-30, we propose to expand the Canada workers benefit to invest $8.9 billion over six years in additional support for low-wage workers. This will extend income top-ups to about a million more workers and will lift 100,000 Canadians out of poverty. This legislation will also introduce a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage.

Young people have made extraordinary sacrifices over this past year to keep us, their elders, safe. We must not and we will not allow them to become a lost generation. Bill C-30 would make college and university more accessible and affordable. This legislation will extend the waiver of interest on federal student and apprentice loans to March 2023. Waiving the interest on student loans will provide savings for the approximately 1.5 million Canadians repaying student loans.

In the past 14 months, no one has felt the devastating health effects of COVID-19 more than seniors. They deserve a safe, secure and dignified retirement. We therefore propose a one-time payment of $500 in August 2021 to old age security recipients who are or will be 75 or over in June 2022.

Bill C-30 also includes a permanent 10% increase in the old age security benefit for people aged 75 and over as of July 2022.

Small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy. Lockdowns, though necessary, have hit them hardest. To heal the wounds left by COVID, we have to put a small business rescue plan into action as well as a long-term plan to help them grow.

In addition to extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support, we also have to make sure that [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, thanks for those opening remarks and helpful reminders. Last time there were a few interruptions to different speakers on the basis of repetition, and I appreciate the clarifications you've made. I certainly feel that repeating some points within an argument for emphasis' sake is one of my stylistic preferences. It is not in any way meant to waste time or to be overly repetitive, but is simply to drive home very specific points that I think are key within an argument.

There is one that I would repeat again, which I've made over and over and which, I again hope, opposition members will take to heart and maybe reflect on. This is the heart of the argument I've been making and what I've been expounding on in many different ways, and that is if a global pandemic is not a good enough reason for proroguing Parliament, then I would say nothing is.

I've been continuing to make the argument that the economic impact of this global pandemic—and I understand that it is first and foremost a public health crisis, so we really should be focusing at all times on public health, because you can't have a livelihood without a life. We've seen the tragic loss of human life. We must never lose sight of the fact that every life matters. I say that for all of the people and families and communities that have been so deeply impacted. The grief is almost unthinkable for those families.

One thing we've become slightly desensitized to is seeing numbers and statistics and focusing on public health data and graphs. We have to realize that these hundreds and hundreds of deaths and individuals who are in ICUs and who are on ventilators are all individual human beings with networks and relationships. They have made massive contributions to their communities and their families. They're loved and they have this fulsome life that is being taken away by a virus.

It's no one's fault. We need to get away from the blame game. At the same time, we need to really cherish those lives and honour those lives in everything we do. When we're doing this work and this study in this committee, we tend to be focused on the rear-view mirror and on how the prorogation happened. It's almost a distant memory at this point. I have tons of information on the reasons for proroguing, but it's faded in my memory just because there are so many more pressing things for us to be paying attention to that are immediately in front of us.

It is very disheartening that we're continuing with this. I've continually tried to be appeasing and flexible and adaptable to the perspectives of my honourable colleagues from the opposition parties. With that intention, I proposed an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion, that maybe we can do a little bit more study on prorogation but quickly move on.

We see that the opposition parties are not interested in negotiating or being flexible or really working with us on the things that I think are even more pressing. That's really unfortunate, and I really feel there's quite a bit of work to be done that is more immediately pressing.

The main estimates, which you mentioned, Madam Chair, are a pretty important responsibility for our committee. I think that would take one meeting. Perhaps that's an opportunity for us to fulfill some of our other duties.

Division 37 of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, is an area that I've certainly been affected by and concerned about for some time. That's the prevalence of disinformation within election periods and just how much that can have an impact on our democratic institutions and some of the fundamental rights that we hold dear here in Canada. I really feel it's important for us to do the work on the pieces of the budget implementation act, Bill C-30, that are really required of us, if I were to be really honest about it. The Standing Orders define the parameters of PROC. This fits clearly within our mandate. I don't see how the finance committee will do that work, and the other pieces of their work that have to be hived off and given to other committees, if we don't do our part.

That's enough said on that, at the moment. I really feel strongly about that and Bill C-19. It's important for opposition members to realize that the adaptation powers for the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada come into effect upon royal assent of Bill C-19. Those adaptation powers would protect the health and safety of Canadians should opposition parties trigger an election, which they've been coming dangerously close to doing with some of the votes in the House. We're playing roulette at this point, or opposition parties are playing roulette, with people's health and safety, in my view, and I really think that's irresponsible.

I'll get back to the main argument that I've been making here. I have a lot more to say about the hardest-hit industries and sectors and some of the structural barriers to their recovery. They're no fault of any industry, or any industry players or businesses. Really, it's by virtue of the fact of how those business models are. I'll talk about restaurants or the food service industry. I spoke last time more about the airline industry. I covered a little bit about tourism, transportation, warehousing, public transit, commercial real estate and the retail trade. I left off talking about our local chambers of commerce and some of the work that was done around the digital main street initiatives, which I really felt helped some of the retail businesses pivot within the pandemic.

Again, I want to make it clear, just for the sake of relevance, that I believe in making an argument that's relevant at all times. This is relevant because what I've been claiming and substantiating with facts and evidence is quite clearly that the economic impact of COVID-19 is, at the very least, 10 times greater than the recession in 2008-09. Again, the heart of this argument is to say that this global pandemic, because of the economic impact being so much greater, if we were to say that an economic crisis or recession were a reason to prorogue Parliament and to reassess and re-evaluate and reset the agenda, and that's been a valid reason to prorogue Parliament in history....

I think this provides evidence as to why our Prime Minister chose to prorogue, and to use the prerogative that he had, between the first and second waves of COVID-19. I've been speaking to how this is rational. It makes sense. The process was substantive during that time. It really got to gather evidence and qualitative feedback from many stakeholders, which then fed into a throne speech that reflected that.

What I want to focus on today in my argument is just the depth of the impact on some of the hardest-hit industries, and then some of the things that were extended and even added, with some of the programs and supports that our government offered and that were redesigned coming out of that re-evaluation period during the time when Parliament was prorogued.

Again, I have to say this, because I feel that opposition members have implied many times over that the government sort of took a break at that time and essentially prorogued to just sit around and twiddle their thumbs. They have also claimed that the Speech from the Throne had nothing new in it. This is so false. It's factually false. If you look at the throne speech, it reflects the data, evidence and consultation work that was done during that time.

If you look at how much consultation work was done, as I've said before, I went to at least 15 different sessions. In my community, I did hundreds of surveys and consultation sessions—just me, and I'm just one member of Parliament. I know that my colleagues did the same. When I step back from this, even when I am trying to be charitable to my opposition colleagues, I still cannot find any evidence of how the overall narrative and story that we have provided, which are based in reason and evidence, are somehow deficient.

There seems to be no effort to assess the merit of the reasons that were given. I don't know how we got to this place. In my view, our government has done everything it can to be there for Canadians every step of the way.

I'm not saying we're perfect. I absolutely would not say that. I'm not perfect; none of my colleagues is. I think we all have things we can....

I know, Mr. Amos, you might be the exception, my friend, but for me, I can certainly admit various flaws.

We need to assess the merits of the report that was tabled and look at it on face value and ask what is deficient about the rationale. I can't find anything that doesn't make sense to me.

Okay. I'm in the governing party and I'm a Liberal. I get that. But I try to step outside of my perspective and critically evaluate and ask if there is any charitable or generous way that I can interpret the merits and the truth of the perspective of those who oppose my perspective. That has to be a part of our democracy and our debates at all times, because if we can't get outside of our own biases and perspectives, then we truly have lost our way.

However, when I do that, I still cannot find anything that doesn't make sense based on what I've seen and the data I have at my fingertips. I don't know where opposition members are really coming from when they are pushing the narrative that somehow prorogation was done for some ulterior motives that they seem to want to push. It seems just like a partisan political agenda that has no basis in reality.

I'm sorry to say that but, honestly, that is how I feel. I don't see any argument the opposition has made that really holds any water. I will continue to provide more data and evidence and to back up the claims that I am making, because I think they are the closest approximation of the truth. Until opposition members can actually engage in a fruitful debate on that, I think we're at an impasse.

You have your narrative and preferred interpretation, which are not based in facts and reality, and I have mine, or our members have ours. The difference is that we are providing evidence, data and reasons that make sense. The process makes sense. The themes in the throne speech make sense. The timing makes sense. The report is consistent with that. The testimony given by the government House leader was consistent with that. So what is this really about, when it comes down to it? What is it really about? I would say to you it's not about Canadians.

We're here to serve Canadians. I want to do things that are valuable to my constituents and not waste precious time that we as leaders in our communities have. We have been afforded the privilege and honour of representing the people of our constituencies, and I take that responsibility seriously and with great pride and honour.

At this moment in time we have a third wave that is.... We had the emergency debate last night in the House. Madam Chair, you were there on House duty with me, and I'm sure some of my other colleagues were as well. At least in that debate, things that were being said were starting to get beyond—or at least there were moments when we started to see just a glimmer of hope of getting beyond the partisan politics and focusing on what Albertans need right now to get through this third wave. I would say that at those brief moments in which we seemed to almost transcend the partisan swordsmanship and jousting, I thought okay, let's just go a bit further, one step further, and collectively come together and do our job for Canadians. That gave me just a glimmer of hope, but it was gone so quickly, and here we are back in committee basically ensnared in the same political jousting that to me is just unfortunate. It's more than unfortunate. It actually makes me feel sad. It really does. It's disturbing that this is what we're up to.

Anyway, I'll get back to my argument. Let me say a little bit about the retail industry. By June 2020, the retail activity had surpassed pre-COVID levels while payroll was 15% lower. This is kind of interesting just in terms of, again, understanding the impact on our economy and how unequal it is across industry. The retail industry in June 2020 was coming back. It rebounded very strongly. Retail activity surpassed pre-COVID levels, for a brief time, of course, because when we then had the full-out second wave, obviously that all changed again. Payroll was still lower, so in a way you would anticipate that in fact many retailers were more profitable in that time because their payroll was down but their sales activity was up, which is interesting.

Anyway, the point is that between February and May, sales had fallen by 18%, but e-commerce sales had doubled during the same period, which is interesting as well. I would say to you that many of the non-essential retailers were able to pivot to e-commerce, and I would link this back to our government's support. In my community, I know for a fact that the Digital Main Street initiative and the efforts made by our business improvement area in both our downtowns—because we're fortunate enough to have two in Whitby, in my riding—along with the work that the chamber of commerce did to help in the region of Durham, including my riding and others adjacent to mine.... They did incredible work to help local retailers move to online sales.

This didn't allow them to fully recover. It didn't insulate them fully from the impacts of COVID-19, of course, during the first and eventually second wave, but it did help.

It was interesting to note as well that many of the essential retailers, the retail stores that were deemed essential, continued to operate and actually increased sales dramatically. Again, just think about the equity issues here within the economic impact of COVID-19 and how important it is for our government to target support by taking the time to understand these dynamics and really listen to the industry associations that quite vocally were giving feedback.

Again, it was to inform our approach. Have we lived through this before? I haven't lived through a global pandemic. Has anybody here? Anybody here who has, please raise your hand. I see hands raised. Please give me a signal if you've lived through a global pandemic before. No. Nobody has.

Some of us may have studied global pandemics, but I would say that this one is not the same. It may have some characteristics that are clearly similar, which I'm sure Dr. Duncan can speak to, but I think that the state of our economy, the point in time, the moment in history, how this happened and the specific nature of the virus and how it's affected us are really things that none of us could have anticipated. I think it has had a unique impact in a way that we couldn't have comprehended before it happened.

It's interesting to think about it in terms of reflection and how important it is to learn from this, but also to realize that not every virus, not every pandemic and not every communicable disease is going to impact us in the same way. That's something else that we need to take from this. Being prepared for public health emergencies and other climate-related emergencies is going to take real adaptability and an ability to predict the various different ways in which things could unfold, based on different types of threats and risks, etc. I really welcome those conversations in the future to learn all we can from this experience.

Just to go back to my point here, we couldn't really have predicted that some businesses were going to stay open. In many respects, some of those decisions clearly were not within federal jurisdiction. We had provincial governments doing different things and doing them in a way that we couldn't. We weren't making those decisions. Sure, to some degree, we were providing some guidance and advice, but not always. Many of those decisions were made by provincial and territorial governments.

What I've heard in my community is that those really had impacts. The way that public health restrictions were rolled out and then rolled back, and how they were targeted to different industries and sectors, really had an impact on the different industries and sectors. Businesses were struggling with different scenarios. Again, how were we, as a federal government, supposed to understand that if we didn't take the time to prorogue, re-evaluate and listen to those stakeholders?

I find it hard to share in the perspective of some of my colleagues who seem to think that prorogation was not an appropriate or good use of time or was even for some other nefarious purpose. It just makes sense to me that you have to take time to re-evaluate. It's a lot of work to reflect and re-evaluate too. It's not easy. To learn and re-evaluate is not a holiday. It takes great commitment to ensure a good responsive government that is working for the people. It has to re-evaluate all the time. I would actually suggest that we probably need to re-evaluate constantly. I think we are, but perhaps there are ways to do that even better, too.

I'll get back to my argument here, which is that I've gathered some facts and figures from the hotel industry, as well, that I think are pretty important. These were collected in quarter three of 2020. The hotel industry or accommodations industry identified situational factors that I think we're all aware of that were really impacting them. Ongoing travel restrictions, obviously, were a big one that they identified. They also identified rising case counts, economic uncertainty, the Canada-U.S. border closure to non-essential travel, the reinstatement of gathering rules, the reopening rollbacks, the support program extensions. These were all situational factors. These were things they identified that were in the context they were dealing with.

I used to do strategic planning for organizations before getting into politics. With any organization, any large business, you would do a situational analysis—sometimes it was referred to as an environmental scan—before you developed a strategy. We did this work collectively, but I also did it with individual organizations. I think it's better to do it collectively, but it's more complex when you do it collectively because there are many different situational factors that are affecting different stakeholders within a system.

When you think about the complexity of doing this at a national scale with different levels of government, with many industries, with industry associations, with members of the public, with non-profit organizations, and the list goes on and on and on, just think about the complexity of how this virus has had ripple effects through our entire society. Just think about the challenges of different people, depending where you sit and stand in that system, and how what's relevant to you looks different depending on where you are. Again with those situational factors and that situational analysis, situational leadership depends upon that intelligence. Those are things that prorogation helped our government do. It helped it to stay attuned to those things, those factors and the differences of perspective out there. That, to me, is part of a responsible, responsive government.

You can't have good governance without being responsive. You can't. I mean, what does it even mean? What does good governance even mean if we're not listening to the various voices and stakeholders from across the country, especially in a 100-year public health crisis?

Again, we listened to the hotel industry. It had situational factors that it identified. The year-over-year change to occupancy for the accommodations industry in quarter one was down 10 points. In quarter two, it was down 49 points. That was when the pandemic hit. In July and August, it was still down 37 to 42 points. In quarter two, their revenues were down 82%. Basically, it started to get a bit better in July and August, but you can imagine that there was not a free-for-all. The pent-up demand—everybody wants to take a vacation, travel somewhere and stay in a hotel and—hadn't happened yet. In July and August 2020, we saw a moderate return of some revenues to the hotel industry, but they were very minor compared to what we saw in the retail industry.

Again, what I'm pointing to is the inequity of the impacts of the pandemic and the economic impact being greater—at least 10 times greater—than those of the previous recession in 2008-09.

Linking all this back for the sake of relevance, for my colleague Ms. Vecchio and others, these are all good reasons to have the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance testify before this committee and give us some testimony as to how she understood all of these various impacts at the time and how prorogation gave us the opportunity to re-evaluate some of our programs and eventually, I think, target more support for these industries. Some of that work is still ongoing, but lots of work has been done.

In particular, going back to the hotel industry....

Again, Madam Chair, I'm sorry for taking up so much time. I tend to be a bit verbose. Hopefully, as my political career continues, I may get more concise in the future. I struggle with this at times. I'll work on that.

Look, Madam Chair—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks to my generous colleagues who graciously gave up their spot in the speakers list to have me speak. I do appreciate that.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to tell you a funny story. Before PROC meetings now, I'm bringing my cappuccino maker into my office just so I have it on hand. I find I need extra caffeine for these meetings to keep me going.

I want to make a bit of a plea to my colleagues on the committee. We know that the finance committee is seized with a big responsibility right now, which is to review Bill C-30, the budget implementation act. They have to do this by the end of June. Pieces of that bill are being hived off and given to committees that have a mandate for different sections.

There's a section in particular which this committee would be responsible for if you look at the mandate of PROC. These are the changes to the Canada Elections Act. It's division 37. It's specifically the section that deals with publishing knowingly false statements that affect an election result. This is a concern that I have and that other members of this committee have expressed in the past. There's been quite a lot of debate in past Parliaments about this particular issue. The word “knowingly” is one of the hot-button issues.

With the recent Ontario Superior Court decision, I think there's some reason to study this. I think that the finance committee would have a very hard time if PROC doesn't undertake some work on this topic to help them meet their deadline. It is within our mandate and within the Standing Orders. I believe it's Standing Order 108(3)(vi). It basically says PROC is responsible for studying anything to do with the election of members of Parliament, so I think it is within our mandate.

In this regard, I think it's our duty to move on to doing some work on this particular issue. I think we could hear from witnesses and have some meaningful discussion about this.

I want to move the following:

That the committee proceed to the following motion: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(vi), the chair write to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance indicating that the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs wishes to conduct a study on the amendments to the Canada Elections Act contained in Bill C-30; that the committee shall hold a minimum of three meetings each for a minimum of two hours; that the first witness called shall be the Chief Electoral Officer; that the witness lists must be provided to the clerk no later than Friday, May 7; and that the report from the committee on this study shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance not later than the timeline received from the finance committee.

Thank you.

Ways and Means

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)