Bill C-8 (Historical)

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations in order to
(a) introduce a new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses on qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality;
(b) expand the travel component of the northern residents deduction by giving all northern residents the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses even if the individual has not received travel assistance from their employer;
(c) expand the School Supplies Tax Credit from 15% to 25% and expand the eligibility criteria to include electronic devices used by eligible educators; and
(d) introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.
Part 2 enacts the Underused Housing Tax Act . This Act implements an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. It sets out rules for the purpose of establishing owners’ liability for the tax. It also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. Finally, to promote compliance with its provisions, this Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions aligned with those found in other taxation statutes.
Part 3 provides for a six-year limitation or prescription period for the recovery of amounts owing with respect to a loan provided under the Canada Emergency Business Account program established by Export Development Canada.
Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools.
Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proof-of-vaccination initiatives.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.72 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests. It also sets out reporting requirements for the Minister of Health.
Part 7 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Carol Hughes, NDP, The Assistant Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had 16 minutes left for his speech.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I note that you were in the Chair when I last spoke to this, so I am sure you are sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to hear the remaining 16 minutes of my speech on this topic. I appreciate that some of my colleagues from across the way are as well.

When we last spoke to this, I was referencing the fact that I was concerned about some of the discussion I was hearing from across the way, in terms of the government's motive for this particular piece of legislation. Last evening I mentioned that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon claimed the objective of helping provinces and territories with proof of vaccinations across the country was somehow just a political tool, because provinces and territories were able to handle that on their own.

My issue with that was that for some reason there always has to be a hyperpartisan and political reason that is put forward by the other side as opposed to, perhaps, just the willingness to want to help Canadians and to move forward with things. My tone yesterday evening certainly was one of skepticism based on the fact that this narrative continually comes from across the way.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon specifically said that this was just a tool to help fuel the partisan fire. As a matter of fact, earlier in those comments he talked about the fact that this pandemic was now moving into an endemic stage and that we have to come to terms with it. I thought it was an interesting discussion. He was basically accusing the government of insisting on driving fear by bringing forward motions or bills such as this one in an attempt to somehow distract from the fact that this was moving into another stage of the pandemic.

I agree with the member that this pandemic, which we have been going through for two years, is reaching the endemic stage, and I agree totally with his comments that we will be dealing with COVID-19 for quite a while. There is not going to be that one defining moment when COVID-19 suddenly does not exist anymore. We are not going to wake up one morning and just have no more coronavirus. That is not going to happen.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan spoke at length about the evolution of science. He would know that the evolution of science, and the scientists out there, are pretty much saying the same thing: that this coronavirus will enter an endemic state and it will be here with us for some time to come.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was saying that this bill was somehow trying to fuel the anti-freedom movement that he proclaims the government is hell-bent on. When I look through the various parts of this bill, I look at it completely differently. If members look at the actual items that are proposed in this piece of legislation, they could not help but see that this is about preparing for the future, endemic part of coronavirus.

We talk about procuring millions of rapid tests for provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Millions have already been supplied, but we are talking about ensuring that millions more can get throughout the country so that the capacity is there to continue rapid testing. We know that, because coronavirus will be with us for quite some time, this is going to be one way that we can try to control it as best we can: by finding out who has it and when, and helping to protect people and prevent the spread of it.

Another item in this is protecting children by making sure that we invest in proper ventilation in schools throughout the country. Elementary schools and high schools would primarily be in those categories. Again, going back to the science that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is so willing to tout, we know that the science is saying that this airborne virus moves very quickly through indoor settings that do not have proper ventilation.

As we prepare for coronavirus to be with us for a while, why would we not start investing in having the proper ventilation systems in schools? Why would we not help provinces with that? Everybody knows we do not have jurisdiction over education, but we can certainly help from a resource perspective in providing the necessary tools to make schools safer. This is not about fearmongering. This is about providing resources right now so that for years and months to come, however long this takes, schools would be in a better position to fight coronavirus.

We talk about support for workers in businesses through changes to CEBA and EI, which are taking care of people when they have to take time off work. My wife and I have a small business in Kingston. We have an employee who had to take two days off as he waited for the results of his COVID-19 test. Because the province of Ontario has three days of sick pay, businesses across the province of Ontario can help support those employees who have to be off work through the WSIB program. At least in Ontario, that is the case.

This is about continuing to extend supports to businesses and individuals throughout the country as they are faced with dealing with COVID-19 and what is being requested of them. The truth is that there are a lot of employees out there who would probably say they feel fine. They know they just had a test, but they want to go back to work and not take the time off. We know that from a societal perspective it is better to hold them back a couple of days until they get that result before reintroducing them into their workplace. Should we not, from a societal perspective, be supporting those individuals and those businesses?

There are also a host of tax credits that would benefit Canadians, including the ventilation improvement tax credit for small business, which is, again, about helping the ventilation of stores and businesses. I think of my riding of Kingston and the Islands and the downtown area. It is one of the first downtown areas in the country. It is very old, with a lot of limestone buildings that are two hundred or three hundred years old. They do not have the best ventilation systems. These are businesses that have had to close for weeks and months on end at times. Rather than forcing them through some kind of regulation to increase ventilation, why not provide support so they have a fighting chance of surviving? There has also been talk about teachers and farmers and increasing supports to them.

We know that the bill would implement a national tax on value-added, non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate in Canada. I would like to talk about this one for a moment because the member for Calgary Centre's speech yesterday would lead one to believe that this tax was going to be applied to everybody.

I said that he knows this is about non-residents and non-Canadians who have vacant land or unused residential buildings. He agreed to that and concurred with me that I was right, but he then went on to say it is just another added level of taxation and that we are adding another level to the municipal taxes that exist through property taxes, as if to conflate the two issues. He was acknowledging that I was right in my claim and that he had not provided all the information, but then he tried to conflate the two issues again in the same answer to that same question.

This is one of the things that makes me the most frustrated when I have to debate with Conservatives in this place. Time and time again, I find it is as though, as long as we can slightly alter the narrative, even if it does not resemble the truth, it is okay as long as it results in political gain. Therefore, I come back to the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon when he, in his discourse, was doing exactly what I am now indicating that I am concerned about.

The problem with this is that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did not come here, look at the elements of the bill, and say that we forgot seasonal tourism and that is one thing he is concerned about. He could have said that he has a number of seasonal tourism operators who may have made a lot of money in the summer, but who are not now, and as a result, they are missing some of the benefits from Bill C-2, and he would really like this bill to dig into that in committee.

My point is that, rather than coming forward and highlighting some of the challenges in the bill and identifying the problems so we can make it better, which is the role of the opposition, he came forward and tried to suggest that this is more about antifreedom and continuing to take freedoms away from people.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan started his speech yesterday by promising that he was only going to talk about freedoms and the lack thereof for a couple of minutes and then get back to the bill, which he never did. Members can go back and review Hansard. He spoke the whole 10 minutes on those two issues, and I sat here in silence.

I thought of getting up on a point of order for relevance at one point, but I know that really never results in anything, and of course, I do not want to take away from the member's ability to run a 10-minute continuous clip on Facebook later, or on his podcast—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we need to question the relevance of my colleague's comments. I would appreciate it if he would get back to the matter at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

What the hon. member just said is not really a point of order but more a matter of debate, so I would ask him to wait. There are just under four minutes left in the speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I was just picking up where the previous speaker had left off as it relates to relevancy.

In any event, at the core of this, it comes back to what a lot of my debates in the House are about. I actually can say that I really appreciated, although it was not under the right heading, what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan debated last night, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said the same thing. I do not think that this is the bill under which to be having that debate with him, and I disagree with him fundamentally on some of the ways in which he is trying to make linkages.

Nonetheless, I appreciated the discourse because at least it came from a place of trying to challenge ideas and the way that we move forward. Despite the fact that I disagree with it, I see it as being more productive than just coming in here and saying that the government has failed here, here and here, and that it is trying to lock down our lives and our freedoms and so on and so forth, and therefore this bill sucks. That is really what I hear a lot of the time, and what I have heard for six years. I would implore my colleagues across the way to genuinely look at examples where we can fix this bill. I will be the first to lend my voice to that.

I mentioned seasonal tourism a few minutes ago. There were some unfortunate consequences to some of the supports that came along previously. One is that there are business owners out there who plan an entire year for three or four months of business. This is in a lot of tourism businesses, and seasonal tourism businesses in particular, of which I have a number in my riding. The problem is that sometimes, in the way that we calculate things, we base it on the last 90 or 120 days or whatever it might be.

In the middle of September, if we tell people that they have to qualify based on the last 120 days, but they had to employ people for an entire year, and their revenue was not significantly lost during that short time, but over the whole year they saw a 60% or 70% revenue decrease, we are not capturing them. I would suggest, then, that we have work to do in terms of correcting and making sure that the supports are getting to the business owners who need them. Therefore, I hope that when this bill gets to the point of going to committee, this is one of the issues that can be looked concerning CEBA and helping some of those businesses, particularly in the hardest-hit sectors.

I recognize that my time is coming to a close. I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is very disappointed by that, but we can perhaps pick this up on his podcast later on.

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

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for referencing my podcast, Resuming Debate, which people can download on all available podcast platforms. He might be so lucky as to be a guest one of these days. I do enjoy my exchanges with him on Twitter, especially the last one we had, of which I will not identify the ratios involved, because I do not want to cause too much pain across the way.

I did want to talk about the issue of rapid tests, because Conservatives have been raising the importance of rapid tests. Of course, rapid tests are a tool that was available to us long before vaccinations were available, and today we are recognizing that vaccination is an important tool, but that people still can get COVID-19 if they are vaccinated. We have some examples of colleagues in that situation. We recognize the importance of rapid tests.

The government was very late to be talking about or recognizing the value of rapid tests. Now there has been a shift in just the last few weeks in the way it talks about them, and I would say that is a welcome shift. We welcome the government eventually coming to recognize some of the things we have been saying in the official opposition for a long time.

In my province of Alberta, we do have an opportunity for people who are not vaccinated to still be able to access restaurants if they have had a rapid test. Does the member think a reasonable alternative for people, in the context of the cross-border mandate and other issues, would be to have a rapid test that shows they are COVID negative?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would encourage the member to recognize that it is not the number of one's Twitter likes that matters; it is perhaps more the content that is put out there.

Nonetheless, to his questions specifically about rapid tests, this government delivered. I know I can speak at least of Ontario, the province I am from. This government delivered millions of rapid tests to the provinces. How the provinces choose to use those, when they choose to deploy them, where they choose to store them and how they choose to distribute them is completely up to them. In terms of his question about another alternative in restaurants in his home province of Alberta, I would suggest he talk to Premier Kenney about that.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me just say that, in times of crisis, many things can divide us.

Of course, there is one thing that unites us, but that one thing does not appear in the economic update or in Bill C‑8: The premiers of the Canadian provinces and the Premier of Quebec are unanimous in their demand for higher health transfers.

I heard my colleague when he said this bill will pave the way to the future for Canada. However, the federal government clearly does not want to increase health transfers in the next five years.

I am trying to understand. We are in a crisis because of the pandemic, and health is the people's priority, yet the federal government is stubbornly ignoring a unanimous request for a significant health transfer increase as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess it would not be a question and answer period without a question about health transfers coming from the Bloc, so I can appreciate that. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, this government has provided eight out of every 10 dollars related to COVID supports. We have worked with provinces and delivered money and resources to provinces when the provinces have asked.

I am unaware of a time that a province has asked for a significant support related to dealing with COVID-19 when the federal government was not there to support them. I know the Bloc Québécois has a particular issue with health transfers by and large at the highest level, that one annual turnover of a payment, but to suggest that, because we are in a pandemic right now and the federal government has not increased health supports, the federal government is not interested in helping provinces, is absolutely incorrect.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's remarks on this bill, and I did not hear him mention anything about the changes to the northern residents deduction, something that affects a lot of residents in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a beautiful part of northwest British Columbia. Bill C-8, the bill before us, would change the travel portion of the northern residents deduction, but it would do nothing to change the basic residency deduction, which is deeply flawed and based on an arbitrary line on the map.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would support looking at the way the residency deduction is calculated and helping people in places such as Haida Gwaii, the village of Granisle, and so many other northern and remote communities across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for bringing that up.

To be completely honest, this is an issue that I am not very much aware of, so I appreciate his bringing that issue up here. I hope that he or his colleagues have the opportunity to bring it up at committee when this bill goes to committee, and I look forward to learning more about it when it comes back. I do thank him for providing a concern relevant to this bill, and I am looking forward to advancing some kind of change with respect to it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Kingston and the Islands for his speech.

One of the elements of this bill includes a commitment of about $100 million in budget 2021 to provide transfers back to farmers in backstop provinces, including his own here in Ontario, particularly for those farmers who are not able to move outside with the different technologies. I know that the member resides in an urban area, but he would have rural areas and the agriculture heartland around him in southeastern Ontario.

Can the member opposite talk about how important it is to make sure that those farmers have that benefit coming back to them and of course incentivize them to adopt new technologies to reduce emissions on farms, which is going to help our long-term competitiveness?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for that question.

Yes, it is absolutely critical that we provide supports and resources to farmers. Although I might be from an urban riding, I certainly depend on rural Canada to feed myself and my family and my friends and neighbours. It is important that we have the necessary tools in place. It is important that we help farmers prepare for the future and for new technologies that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, this government has been very clear since day one that we are not going to put the burden squarely on one person or another. We want to attack this from a holistic, societal perspective when it comes to dealing with our greenhouse emissions. Will we be there for farmers in this regard? Yes, we will, just as we will be there for small businesses in urban settings and larger businesses as they look to make this transition.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contribution from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

The member opposite mentioned in his speech that he is open to potential solutions or ideas to improve the bill before us, and one that I would throw to him is in regard to travel and tourism.

Would the member support relaxing some of the travel regulations that are in place so that international visitors could be allowed into this country, which would stimulate economies like his and mine, areas that have a significant reliance on international visitors?