Finance Committee on Dec. 7th, 2021

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's Mr. McLean for five minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

That's okay. Thank you.

One of the notes in the documents here, which is quite clear, is that we're extending the Canada Recovery Benefits Act for two years—that is, for payments to come out of this for two years—until 2026. We're extending the benefit programs by seven months, and we're extending the benefit period to pay it out by two years. Can somebody please explain the rationale to me?

[Benoit Cadieux]

I can answer the question, Catherine, if you want.

The extension from, I believe, the end of March 2024 to the end of March 2026 is to allow for any activity with respect to the administration of the act. So, it could be post-verification activities; it could be activities that are taking place many years down the road to reconcile payments, including recovery activities, etc., done by CRA to administer this act. It's really to allow more time for those activities to take place. With the extension of the benefits, it was recognized that additional time would be beneficial, and that's why that end date is being extended.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I appreciate that you would have to extend by seven months what you foresaw previously. I don't understand why all the programming that had to go out in the period, spanning an extra three years post-benefit the last time, has to be extended by another two years when you're extending the benefit coverage periods by only seven months.

I don't get clarity in your answer there. It just seems like it's a rationale, so I'm going to follow along the lines of where my colleague took us earlier. At what point in time here did this become something that you, the department, were seized with? Was this given to you as far as a project goes, a slush fund, if you will, which is what this seems to be to me now? There are no parameters around how it's paid and when it's paid definitionally, and even the extension of the time period here seems rather egregious.

Rationale matters in a bill such as this. We are putting you to the test of justifying the numbers, the definitions and, of course, the timelines for this programming, none of which have been provided here. Please tell us how you got to where you are as far as this draft goes, because it doesn't seem like it follows a logical pattern.

[Catherine Demers]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can respond with respect to part 2 and part 3.

This suite of measures that are proposed here is very much proposed in the context of understanding where we were in September with the ending of the recovery benefits, which were really meant for a specific purpose, that of addressing the slowdown of the economy as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and the massive loss of employment that happened as a result. The benefits were there for a specific reason, a specific time, to support those workers impacted economically by the pandemic.

What is proposed here in terms of supports for workers is really looking at the transition from a situation where it's having to address mass layoffs, which we're no longer in, but a situation where you could still have pockets in communities across the country, such as, for example, pockets where workers are indeed still in a situation where there's a lockdown and there are restrictions impacting their work.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intent. What I'm looking at here in my first question was that suddenly we're extending these benefits for two years past where they were before. Somehow I'm getting no clarity on the rationale for how we arrived at this. A lot of these things, definitionally and monetarily, are just a piggy bank and just saying, “Here's a blank cheque, so go out and deliver.” Please, show me something where that perception isn't spot-on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is the time, Mr. McLean. Thank you.

We're moving to the Liberals and Mr. MacDonald for five minutes.

This will be the end of our fourth round. I am looking to members to think about whether we want to go into a fifth round. It will be a truncated fifth round.

You have the floor right now, Mr. MacDonald, for five minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, in thinking back over a time period of COVID-19 and how government responded so quickly in such an unprecedented, difficult time, there was no plan in place. There was no rule book. There was an expedition to make sure that people had a safe place to lay their heads down at night and to have food on their table in the morning, and I think the government and the individuals represented here today deserve credit for that.

Have we learned something, Chair, over that time period? Of course we have, but has it evolved and has it been ever-changing as we go forward? It certainly has. Take the tourism industry in Prince Edward Island. It's almost 7% of our GDP, so it's extremely important for us to ensure that this bill gets the attention it does and that it does not fall by the wayside of bureaucratic process and concern.

Here's what I will ask. Many small tourism and hospitality businesses in P.E.I. did not initially qualify, whether it was due to low revenue or seasonality. What changes have been made to this program to ensure that they don't fall through the cracks?

[Trevor McGowan]

As I understand the question, it relates to tourism-related businesses that are seasonal and what protections are available under the measures in part 1 of the bill in order to reflect [Technical difficulty—Editor]

Since we're starting with the tourism and hospitality recovery program, I would note that the 12-month revenue-decline test looks to the months during which the business was ordinarily in operation. If you have a seasonal tourism business that is not typically in operation for the entire year, then you'd look only to the months of the year during which it was being run. That provides a truer picture of the yearly income of that business.

Of course there are the existing rules under the wage and rent subsidy programs that the tourism and hospitality program is based upon, whereby entities are free to elect alternative reference periods for their month-over-month revenue declines. They also have the month-to-month deeming rule that can allow them to smooth out some of the revenue declines.

These taken together provide some flexibility for these seasonal businesses, including the tourism and hospitality area.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

I'm just curious. What public health considerations went into the development of this legislation?

[Trevor McGowan]

Well, I can speak to some of the measures in part 1 of the bill, in particular the local lockdown program, which are intended to respond and provide a higher level of subsidization where entities are subject to a lockdown. Those could even extend to the wage subsidy, whereas lockdown support was previously provided only in respect of the rent program, which was based upon a physical location being locked down.

You've seen an extension in this bill of the response to lockdowns to go beyond rental payments made where a physical location is locked down to an entity itself, so a corporation or even an individual, sole proprietors, or businesses subject to lockdown orders. There's an expansion responding to public health orders designed to protect people in that, as well, beyond the rent subsidy.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just on another note, we have a lot of temporary foreign workers on Prince Edward Island. Do the owners of those businesses the temporary foreign workers work for have access to these programs?

[Trevor McGowan]

There are requirements for the work to be in Canada, and of course for the wage subsidy there would be a requirement that wages be paid under an employee-employer relationship. In addition, under the rent subsidy it would be possible for a business that uses temporary foreign labour to obtain rent subsidies. That could extend to mortgage costs and property taxes as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. McGowan.

Now we have concluded our fourth round. As we look at going into a fifth round, I have a friendly request from our member Monsieur Ste-Marie that we tack onto this round the 10 minutes we lost this morning with the officials due to rebooting our phones. I'll look to members to see if they're okay with it.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, so we will move into a fifth round.

We will commence with the Conservatives for five minutes. Who will be...?

Mr. Stewart, go ahead. I'm sorry I caught you off guard.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. That's okay.

A lot of good questions were asked today. I think they're all equally important, but earlier I asked how much it's going to cost to administer this program, a $7.4 billion suite of funds that are going to be doled out. I asked how much it would cost to administer it and I never got an answer. I wonder if, in that time, somebody has done the due diligence and found that answer. Any witness can feel free to answer that question.

[Maximilian Baylor]

As I indicated, we committed to try to provide the answer as a follow-up, along with the other answers.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

For clarification, there was another question I asked at that time, whether the amount to administer.... Actually, let me ask this question: Is there an extra cost associated with doling out $7.4 billion?

[Maximilian Baylor]

My understanding is that it's part of the $7.4 billion, but that needs to be confirmed and would be confirmed when the answer is provided.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

My question is whether there is actually an added cost. You have clarified twice now that the cost is within it, but I'm still trying to figure out why witnesses would show up here today without that very important information.

You want us to shovel through $7.4 billion. Basically, anybody in Canada could claim that they were sick and not be sick, and achieve the benefit, with little to nothing from a doctor. I'm just shocked that we don't have an answer to that.

Another question I have is if this will negatively impact other programs and the delivery of those programs, considering the magnitude of the $7.4 billion.

[Catherine Demers]

Maybe I can respond, if that's okay, to the questions related to costing for the Canada recovery sickness benefit. It is in a different situation from the Canada worker lockdown benefit in terms of the estimated costs. For the sickness and caregiving benefits, we are estimating a total of $1.8 billion in benefits to be paid to a total of 890,000 potential individual claimants.

Those are the cost estimates. They are estimates, because it really depends on the intake for the benefit, should it be needed, because of closures of schools and institutions and a rise in COVID cases. For the Canada worker lockdown benefit, it's really important to understand that the costing is directly dependent on the triggering of those benefits in designated regions. Should there be designated lockdown regions where workers would need the benefit, when those situations occur, the cost would then depend on the length and the scope of the lockdown in the community.

As we move forward, we will be in a better position to provide those projections and to report on those costing estimates for the lockdown benefit.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I appreciate that answer. Hopefully, tomorrow we'll have some answers on the total cost to administer the program. I'm looking forward to it.

Those are all of my questions for now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

We're moving to the Liberals and Ms. Dzerowicz.