Human Resources Committee on March 11th, 2021

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

No. I would just ask the chair that we get back to the clause-by-clause, so that we can review this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. I see no further hands raised, so I presume we are now ready for the question. Do we have consensus?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

Next we have proposed new clause 3.1. Is there any discussion with respect to proposed new clause 3.1?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but is that the amendment that was proposed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's you. You have the floor, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The arguments for this amendment are effectively the same as those for the one we were discussing previously, so I don't think we need to revisit that discussion. I think we've had it and we've had a vote. I don't think that, in the absence of the original amendment, amending this particular clause would make sense. It would create a dog's breakfast in the legislation.

I don't know whether or not your ruling would be the same for this amendment, that it is out of order. If it is, it would not be my intention to challenge that ruling at this time given that we've already considered that question on the previous clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You've exactly anticipated what was next, Mr. Blaikie. The amendment proposed is inadmissible for the precise reasons that were contained in my ruling in connection with your first amendment.

That being the case, if you're moving the amendment, I'll issue the ruling. If you're withdrawing the amendment, we can move on.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'll withdraw it for the sake of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

(Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 9)

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have just a quick question. I'm not opposing the clause, but I just noticed this.

Could the staff from ESDC explain the attestation exceptions throughout the bill if the application is made before January 11, 2021? I just want some clarification on that, if they could provide it for me. I'm not opposing anything. I just need some clarification.

[Andrew Brown]

Sure. I can answer that question for the member.

The reason there are these references to the attestation is that the provisions of the bill would come into force retroactively, back until when the benefits were created. If the attestation were to have applied to those periods from October 2, when it received royal assent, up until January 11, when the CRA started to collect that information from people applying for these benefits, then they would have made incomplete applications.

In other words, those people who applied for the benefits back at that point would then become ineligible for the benefits, not having answered this additional question with respect to international travel. That's the reason it indicates that for this one particular criterion—one each for the Canada recovery benefit, Canada recovery sickness benefit and Canada recovery caregiving benefit—they do not have to have attested to that criterion that would come into effect retroactively.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Brown.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further interventions or questions with respect to clause 9? I see none.

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11)

Go ahead, Mr. Vis.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

On the Customs Act, can Mr. Brown give us a quick explanation of the impacts of clause 11 and how it relates to the Canada recovery benefit in conjunction with the Customs Act?

Thank you. I just need a little more clarification on what it's actually doing.

[Andrew Brown]

Thanks again for the question.

In this case, in clause 11 and the change to the Customs Act, the purpose here is to provide an enabling authority so that the Canada Border Services Agency, which collects information when people enter and exit the country, would be able to share certain information with the department, simply and solely for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Canada Recovery Benefits Act. This is really for that purpose of being able to confirm and check for compliance with the criterion that the person has not been travelling on non-essential international travel.

Again, the primary way in which this will be applied is that CRA will be asking applicants to attest to the fact that they meet the criterion, that they have not travelled internationally, but this would provide an enabling authority so that if there is a concern, it's possible to check. It would provide the ability for CBSA to then share that information, which is collected under the Customs Act, with ESDC or CRA for the purpose of administering these benefits.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I have just one more quick point of clarification, Mr. Brown. What would lead to someone having a concern about someone not following this rule? How would a concern be raised?

[Andrew Brown]

Thanks again for that question. I think there probably could be a number of different situations. One of them, certainly, is that the CRA has its own line that people can connect with for the purpose of providing information. That's something they routinely use in terms of leads for investigation, if you will. Otherwise, there could be some other information that would lead to that sort of a check.

Without this sort of enabling authority, there wouldn't be a way for CRA, when they are administering the act, to be able to get at that information. This is an important enabling authority, so that when information comes to their attention, they have a way to check that with CBSA, and subsequently they would need to follow up with the individual to further investigate that situation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you. That's very helpful. I can receive confirmation that it's not a real exchange of information between Canada Border Services Agency and the Canada Revenue Agency.

[Andrew Brown]

That's correct.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Do we have any further questions or discussion with respect to clause 11? I see none.

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(Clause 12 agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.