Evidence of meeting #51 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
May 27th, 2021 / 4:50 p.m.
Bloc
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.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes, that was absolutely the intent behind the drafting. I explained the rationale for the specific change in wording.
I would note that we have heard from different industry groups a request to extend the wage subsidy beyond the end of November based on the different recovery rates for different industries. For example, one industry might need longer to recover, which would be beyond the end of November, and that is not provided. This would allow for rates to be set for the last two qualifying periods, but the wage subsidy could not be extended past the end of November without returning to Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, Gabriel. That was my understanding as well. We are getting a lot of pressure from the tourism industry. What Mr. McGowan said was my understanding. Are you withdrawing BQ-3?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
This should not be controversial at all. It would oblige the Minister of Finance to prepare a report on proposed measures to:
(a) prevent publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries from paying dividends or repurchasing their own shares while receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, for the period that is after the tabling of the report under subsection (32.2); and
recover wage subsidy amounts from publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries that paid dividends or repurchased their own shares while receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, for the period that is before the tabling of the report under subsection (32.2).
This is basically asking the Minister of Finance to do the work to ensure that we know to what extent this was a problem. The government still has not released those figures and the measures they would take to recover those amounts.
This amendment should pass unanimously. This shouldn't be controversial at all. Given that we are aware of the extent of the problem, I fully expect that all members of the finance committee would want to see the Minister of Finance present both the report and the solutions as well to this problem.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right. Is there any discussion? I don't see any.
Shall NDP-9.1 carry?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, actually Ed indicated that he was calling for a recorded vote.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Oh, he was calling for a recorded vote. Okay. I thought he was shaking his head.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
No, Mr. Chair. I want clarity here. We have an amendment that has been brought forward and we are voting on it. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We can, if that's what you want to do. I had taken it as carried on division, but that was my mistake. We will go to a vote.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
All right. We then come to clause 24 as amended.
Does anybody want to speak?
Go ahead, Mr. Fast.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The only question I have on clause 24 has to do with the Canada recovery hiring program.
I did follow some of the debate in the House on the budget implementation act, and I felt that there was a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty about how the transition between the CEWS program and the new hiring program would take place. For the purposes of clarity for anyone watching these proceedings, I would ask that Mr. McGowan just give us an overview of how Canadian businesses will be weaned off the CEWS and brought over to the new hiring program.
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Thank you for the question. I'd be happy to respond to it.
Mechanically, the operation of the rules is very simple, in that you have both the wage subsidy and the new recovery subsidy that exist in tandem for a number of qualifying periods as the wage subsidy rates are being transitioned down. The rules provide that when you make your application, whichever one of the two subsidies gives you the better result is the one you will get. If you would get more money under the wage subsidy for a particular period than under the recovery subsidy, then you qualify for the wage subsidy, and the reverse is true as well.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are moving to clause 24 as amended.
Shall clause 24 as amended carry on division?
