Finance Committee on Dec. 7th, 2021

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe we have officials here who are speaking specifically to Bill C-2. I believe the member from the opposite side of the bench is asking questions that are more appropriately directed at our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

He will have the opportunity to ask her that question when she comes before us this Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz.

The officials who are before us are here to speak to Bill C-2 and any of the technical matters within Bill C-2, any of the questions that should be posed to the ministry of finance or ESDC. There shouldn't be political questions posed to non-political witnesses.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have one more point of order. I'm so sorry. I believe the phone line is down. Can someone from the technical side of our team look into that, please?

Thank you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have a strictly technical question: Where is the money coming from?

It's a $7-billion cost. The money must be coming from somewhere. Is there a money tree? Is there a printing press? That's the technical question I'm asking. I appreciate that the Liberals across the way don't want it answered—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as much as I love to hear the opposition member talk about this, we have wonderful officials here who are here to answer very specific questions around Bill C-2. Again, it seems that these questions are excellent questions. I think they could be directed to our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who is scheduled to come before us this Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

These excellent public servants are not here to answer political questions. I do agree with that.

Mr. Poilievre, I want to let you know that you have a minute left.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I haven't asked a political question. I've asked a strictly technical question: Where's the money coming from? I mean it literally. Where is it coming from?

It's $7 billion. It must be coming from somewhere. If you believe money is a real thing and you're here to tell us how you're going to spend $7 billion of it, clearly you'd be able to tell us where you're getting it. You're asking us here in Parliament to vote for this $7 billion, and you don't want to tell us where you're getting it—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday this committee passed a motion whereby we laid out a schedule for our work for the coming week, the purpose of which was to make sure the different questions that members had could get answered. I know that Mr. Poilievre wants an answer to this question. That question is best directed to the Minister of Finance.

We agreed on an itinerary. I think it's important that we ask the questions at a time when the witnesses who are present can actually answer them. These witnesses are here to help us with Bill C-2, and I think questions should be directed to them on those topics they can answer. Then, when the minister is here, Mr. Poilievre and others can ask the minister questions that are pertinent to the Minister of Finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Again, Mr. Poilievre, there are 30 seconds left on your time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I realize this is our first substantive meeting, but I'll tell the government members on this committee how it's going to work. You don't get to choose our questions. We choose our own questions.

My question is this: Where's the money coming from? You want us to approve another $7 billion of inflationary spending, and I want to know where the money is coming from.

One final time, to anyone in the room—I'll even open it up to government members if they want to chime in—where is the $7 billion coming from?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

We're now going to move to the Liberals for six minutes.

Ms. Dzerowicz, you have the floor.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start off by thanking all of our officials for coming before us today.

I especially want to thank you for all your extraordinary work over the last almost two years. We know that finance officials have been working night and day, so thank you so much for your service to our nation.

Mr. Baylor, maybe I'll direct my first question to you.

As we've moved through COVID and the different phases of COVID, we've moved from broad-based supports to more targeted supports. We moved from spending overall around $289 billion on direct income and business supports down to the current proposal, which is $7.2 billion.

Perhaps, Mr. Baylor, you can explain to us why it is that you landed on the current set of supports. If I look at our supports, they're in three key categories. One is business supports that are very targeted towards tourism, other hard-hit industries and local lockdowns. We also have some supports for the Canadian worker in terms of lockdown supports, and then we have some adjustments to the recovery benefit. Could you address why it is that we landed on the current set of supports?

[Maximilian Baylor]

I can speak to part 1 of the bill. Perhaps my colleagues can speak to part 2 and part 3.

As you indicated, the mandate was to move from the broad-based support that was required at the height of the pandemic during lockdowns to more targeted support as we transition to the new phase of the pandemic. The focus was to target those industries that have suffered during the pandemic and are still suffering, in large part because of some of the continued health restrictions that we're seeing.

The main rationale behind the tourism and hospitality recovery program is to target those industries that are still feeling the impact most. Then it's to provide a broader net, because there is recognition that, while that industry is clearly the one that has been affected most by the health restrictions of the pandemic, there are others. That's what the hardest-hit business recovery program is for. Then the third program, the local lockdown, is really something that kicks in if and when new local lockdowns are, at some point, needed.

I hope that answers the question for part 1.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It does. That is very helpful.

Can you talk a little more? When you start delving into the details, Mr. Baylor, it's very specific in terms of the kind of support we provide for the tourism sectors, the other hard-hit sectors and then the local lockdowns. Can you maybe talk a bit about the consultations the department had in drafting the criteria for each of these three categories?

[Maximilian Baylor]

Yes, I can start, and maybe my colleague, Yves Poirier, can add a little. He knows a bit more about the consultations and what the government did in that regard.

As you suggested, there was outreach in trying to talk to stakeholders and to understand the type and the level of support that was needed and the thresholds. It was also to make sure that this was targeted to those most in need, but, at the same time, providing the right support for those in need and to support them.

Perhaps my colleague, Yves, can add to that in terms of the consultations we had and what we heard.

[Yves Poirier, Director, Economic Development, Business Income Tax Division, Department of Finance]

No, I think that covers it all.

There was an initial announcement from the government that these programs would be rolled out and that more details would come around, like the definitions, in particular, for the tourism and hospitality recovery program. After this announcement, we received input from various stakeholders, basically with suggestions on how we could define those sectors.

That's the kind of engagement we've had with various stakeholders.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

My next question is how you determined what percentage of revenues lost was sufficient to apply for the benefit. That's the first part.

The second part is that, if this legislation is passed, it will be retroactive. Does it go to October, and then would it extend to May 2022? How did you determine the time frame?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have 20 seconds.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I thought I had a couple more minutes. I'm sorry.

Who would like to respond in 20 seconds?

[Maximilian Baylor]

I will try my best.

In terms of the time frame.... Maybe I'll focus on that. The idea was to look at the path of the recovery and to try to time it with that, and to try to be consistent with the health restrictions and those. That was the general idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Baylor.

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Just before we move to the Bloc and Monsieur Ste-Marie, in regard to what Ms. Dzerowicz brought up with the phones not working well, I think we would have to reinitialize the phones, I understand, and that would take about 10 minutes. We would have to suspend for 10 minutes.

Also, the witnesses who are before us this morning are the witnesses who will be with us this afternoon. I say that, members, because for the suspension of 10 minutes we can either add some time, if everybody is in agreement, to this morning's session, or we could do it this afternoon.

I'm looking for agreement.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the phones are only for staff. Is that right?