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.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Trevor, can you explain this tax credit? Is it available to every journalism organization? For example, can the CBC apply for this?
Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
In order to apply, there are a number of conditions that need to be met. First of all, you have to be a qualifying Canadian journalism organization, so you apply and you meet those standards. In addition, there are additional conditions that need to be met in order to be a qualifying journalism organization for the purposes of this tax credit. One of those conditions is that you not be involved in broadcasting, as this is intended to support primarily print media.
You'll see, for example, at the top of page 25, that one of the amendments relates to not being involved in broadcasting, so if you're a broadcaster, you would not be eligible for the journalism labour support credit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, shall clause 23 carry on division?
(Clause 23 agreed to on division)
(On clause 24)
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a number of amendments, Mr. Chair, so if you'll indulge me, what I will do is speak to amendments NDP-2, NDP-3, NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6 and NDP-7.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We also have Mr. Ste‑Marie's amendment, so I'm not sure how you want to proceed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. You can speak to your amendments first. Then I'll give you the ruling, and we'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie. I will have to deal with each amendment in turn, but speak to them all at once, and I'll go through them one by one.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, this is not something that is a surprise to the committee at all. What these amendments seek to do is extend the wage subsidy until the end of the year and extend the rent subsidy until the end of the year.
We have heard repeatedly from organizations, particularly in the tourism industry, that have been very clear about the importance of not closing up shop and assuming that the impacts of COVID are over, but rather extending those supports so that small businesses can actually get through this third wave and possibly a fourth wave—hopefully not. However, we need to make sure that those supports are in place.
There has been very compelling testimony, so there is no doubt that this is what numerous witnesses have been calling on us to do: to extend the wage subsidy with certain conditions that I'll come to a little bit later on. There have been some abuses, and we need to make sure that those abuses are curtailed and ensure that the rent subsidy is there for small businesses as well.
The idea that we should start to scale down COVID support when so many people are continuing to be impacted by this third wave that is still crashing on our shores is something that is very perplexing. That's why so many witnesses came forward to say that we really need to ensure that there is an extension and a provision so that these programs provide the support that is so desperately needed at this time.
That is the intent of the amendments. They are linked, so essentially we are talking about extending the wage subsidy until December 31 and extending the rent subsidy until December 31, in that way ensuring that we actually have the wherewithal to provide supports to small businesses and the tourism industry at a most desperate time for so many of them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, with regard to amendment NDP-2—and they all relate to the same clause—the amendment creates new admissibility periods, which will result in more money coming out of the treasury, so as House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
Therefore, for those reasons, the amendment is inadmissible because it requires a royal recommendation.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
As I mentioned at the beginning, we know that the Liberal government is not interested in amending a bill that is fraught with problems and does not meet the test of what so many people and so many businesses across the country are calling for.
The ability of the government to also provide a royal recommendation and to ensure that these amendments are acceptable has been tested in the past, as you well know, Mr. Chair, most notably in the Jack Layton budget, when Liberals decided to apply those royal recommendations even though there were substantial changes in the budget.
The initial budget from Paul Martin was inclined to give massive supports to the corporate sector. Jack Layton and the NDP caucus—I was a proud member of the NDP caucus at the time—said, “No, no, no. We're going to change spending priorities. Instead of these massive tax cuts, we're going to provide supports for seniors, for post-secondary education, for public transit and for housing.” In fact, one of the housing developments just up the street, on 6th Street, is a result of the famous Jack Layton budget, because there was housing made available by the fact that the Liberal government at the time, desperate to not have an election, decided that they would provide those royal recommendations and allow those amendments.
You are ruling me out of order. I will not challenge the ruling at this time. I will be challenging the ruling in a diplomatic and appropriate way later on—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
—but I do want those who are listening to be aware that this is a choice that the Liberal government is making—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
NDP-2 is ruled out of order.
On NDP-3, which you already spoke on, the amendment creates new admissibility periods, which will result in more money coming out of the treasury, and therefore, because it requires a royal recommendation, we will have to deny it as well.
Is there no challenge on that one? Okay.
Amendment NDP-4—
Conservative
Liberal
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right.
NDP-3 is out of order. For basically the same reason—it requires a royal recommendation—NDP-4 is not admissible.
Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
It's not that I don't want to take Ms. Dzerowicz at her word in the explanation that she just gave, but I wonder if officials, since we have them here, could comment just for the record, as Julie has pointed out, whether or not there are provisions within the bill for the extension as described by Ms. Dzerowicz.
Could I have an official weigh in on that, please?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm not sure which official can answer that. I don't know if that's Trevor's area. It's more wage subsidy, I believe, but go ahead, Trevor.