Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2020

Veterans Affairs

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for all his hard work with the legions and veterans in his riding. Legion branches across the country are dealing with the COVID-19 issue and we would encourage Canadians to support the Royal Canadian Legion's annual poppy campaign this year. Our government is supporting our legions and veterans organizations with $20 million in funding to help them get through this pandemic.

We can be extremely proud of the work we have done for our legions and other organizations to support our veterans and we will always be there for them.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many federally regulated employers are barely hanging on due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They are 100% focused on survival, but instead of helping them the Liberals are insisting that now is the time to hold costly consultations on the right of employees to “disengage from work”. We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis in our lifetime. Workers will be permanently disengaged from work if they lose their jobs. Why is the labour minister putting this extra burden on employers, instead of focusing on helping these workers save their jobs?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that we have been working very collaboratively with both labour and industry. During this pandemic, I want to thank the collaborative nature of my P/T partners, labour and industry, as we work together to protect both workers and industry. We implemented a number of measures like the Canada emergency response benefit as well as a wage subsidy, which in fact keeps the relationship between employee and employer strong so that as we recover through this pandemic we will come back even stronger.

Rail Transportation

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has revealed that Transport Canada still has major shortcomings in the transportation of dangerous goods: outdated lists, thousands of unregulated facilities, no standards and a lack of preparedness for emergency situations.

The mayor of Lac-Mégantic clearly stated, “it is not right that reports should cause so much concern seven years later”.

The Minister of Transport says over and over again that rail safety is his first priority.

When is he going to stop talking and really start doing something to make the safety of Canadians a priority?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He forgot to mention that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development also stated that progress is being made.

However, I support the fact that it is always possible to do better. We will continue to do better with our inspections and our oversight of the measures that the railways have undertaken.

We are always working to improve rail safety. It is part of my first priority

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is finally going to give the $600 one-time, tax-free payment to Canadians living with disabilities. It is meant to defray some of the extra costs arising from the pandemic. The payment only started last Friday, seven months after the announcement.

Will tax credit promoters who sign people up for the disability tax credit get to take their usual 30% cut first, before the money gets to the intended recipients?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working tirelessly to make sure we put a disability-inclusive lens on our complete pandemic response, including from the very beginning consulting our newly formed COVID-19 disability advisory group. Yes, it took a long time, way too long, to get the payment out to individuals with disabilities. We are committed through the Speech from the Throne to make sure that never happens again.

Last Friday, 1.6 million Canadians started getting payments, and I am very proud of our government's work behind the scenes to make this happen.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the workers on our farms are essential to the agriculture sector; they have demonstrated this during the pandemic. As a precautionary measure, temporary foreign workers must be placed in mandatory 14-day isolation upon arrival. Our government quickly provided $50 million in assistance to employers to support their costs. In Brome—Missisquoi, producers have told me time and again how important this measure is, as did the Caron orchard, which was able to benefit from this assistance for some fifty workers.

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether the program is going to be extended?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the mandatory isolation support for temporary foreign workers program has been extended, along with the Quarantine Act, until November 30, 2020. Under the program, employers will receive $1,500 per foreign worker to cover part of the costs associated with the 14-day isolation period during which the worker cannot work.

The health of farm workers is a priority for our government, and we will continue to support food producers and processors so that they can put in place the measures needed to protect essential workers.

Ethics

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill Morneau was forced to resign in the midst of the biggest financial crisis of the century. That was after he tried to move a billion dollars to his besties, the Kielburgers, and the Liberals are promoting him as the head of the OECD. Seriously, let us ask the Sears workers what they think of that. They had their pension funds robbed by hedge fund operators and Bill Morneau did nothing to help them. Meanwhile, his family business was winding up its savings.

This guy is the king of the one per cent. Why are the Liberals promoting his interests instead of the interests of Canadian workers who are facing so much economic insecurity at this time?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I and every member of the House think it is important to have Canadians leading international organizations. We are proud to put forward a Canadian with an outstanding background and the expertise to bring the organization forward. We know the OECD is playing an important role during this pandemic. We are proud to have a Canadian as a candidate, and we will support him so that he can lead the organization into the future.

Small Business

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know this pandemic has had a devastating impact on Canada's small businesses. Many small businesses in my riding have raised concerns about the requirement that landlords apply to the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program.

Can the minister please explain in what ways the new rent subsidy program will be helpful and easier for businesses to use?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the member's question. As Canadians take action to limit the spread of a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we know that many businesses are struggling to meet their monthly expenses, including rent specifically.

The new Canada emergency rent subsidy is going to be better targeted, easier to access and will provide direct support to affected businesses. For the hardest-hit Canadian businesses that suffer a lockdown at the hands of a public health order, we will be there for them, as we said we would be in the throne speech, by providing a rent subsidy that could be as generous as 90% of their monthly expenses. We will be there for businesses through this pandemic to make sure they are still here on the back end.

Bill C-214—Ways and Means Motion

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 30, you made a statement respecting the items of Private Members' Business on the order of precedence. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you drew members' attention to concerns respecting Bill C-214, sponsored by the member for Calgary Centre, entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (qualifying environmental trust)”.

I am rising to make an intervention as to why I believe the bill would need to be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion. A qualifying environmental trust is a special kind of trust that is recognized under the Income Tax Act for setting aside reclamation costs for mining sites, waste disposal and quarry sites, as well as pipelines.

The purpose of Bill C-214, as set out in the summary, is to amend “the Income Tax Act to include, in the definition 'qualifying environmental trust', trusts that are maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil or gas well operated for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas.”

Bill C-214 proposes to repeal paragraph (a) of the definition “excluded trust” in subsection 211.?6(1) of the Income Tax Act, which currently provides that an excluded trust includes a trust that “relates at that time to the reclamation of a well;” and proposes to add paragraph (e) to the definition of “qualifying site” in the same provision. The proposed paragraph (e) would read as follows:

(e) the operation of an oil or gas well drilled for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas.

The consequence of these proposed amendments would be that the reference to a qualifying site in paragraph (b) of the definition of a “qualifying environmental trust” would include the operation of an oil or gas well drilled for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas.

Subsection 211.6(2) of the Income Tax Act is the charging provision that imposes tax on qualifying environmental trusts. Adding a new paragraph (e) to the definition of a “qualifying site” in subsection 211.6(1) of the Income Tax Act would have the effect of expanding the definition of a “qualifying environmental trust” to include trusts that are maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil or gas well operated for producing petroleum or natural gas. Therefore, the effect of Bill C-214 would be to cause a tax to be payable by a new class of taxpayers, that is, qualifying environmental trusts in respect of the operation of an oil or gas well.

Page 906 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The House must first adopt a ways and means motion before a bill which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer can be introduced. Charges on the people, in this context, refer to new taxes, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayers.

The proposed amendment in Bill C-214 in respect of qualifying environmental trusts would represent an increase in the incidence of tax for these trusts. The definition of qualifying environmental trusts in Bill C-214 would now include trusts that are maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil or gas well operated for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas.

As a result, the number of qualifying environmental trusts that would be subject to part XII.4 tax will increase. Therefore, I submit that this is a situation where the adoption of a ways and means motion would need to precede the introduction of Bill C-214, since the effect of the bill would represent an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayers.

In terms of precedents to support the argument that the introduction of the bill should have been preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion, I would draw the attention of members to the following Speaker's ruling.

On November 4, 2011, the Speaker ruled that Bill C-317, an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding labour organizations, should have been preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion, since the provision of the bill would have created a new class of taxpayer. The Speaker ruled:

If enacted, Bill C-317 would thus create a situation whereby labour organizations can be differentiated into two distinct categories, those that comply with the financial reporting mechanism and those that do not.

In the Chair's opinion, this new category of labour organization would constitute a class of taxpayer that does not currently exist. Labour organizations in the newly created class, that is those that do not meet the financial reporting requirements outlined in the bill, would see the removal of their current tax-exempt status....

As a result of this determination, I find that Bill C-317, by distinguishing between certain labour organizations, creates a new class of taxpayer and that this new class of taxpayer would then be subject to a removal of an alleviation of taxation.

For the reasons stated, I must, therefore, rule that Bill C-317 should have been preceded by a ways and means motion.

The principle to be derived from Bill C-317 is that any measure that would have the effect of subjecting a new group of taxpayers to a tax must be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion. This principle also applies in the case of Bill C-214.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member and will take that under advisement.

Oral Questions

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that relates to conduct arising during question period, which I believe to be unparliamentary in nature. A similar point of order was made in a recent question period, I believe, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

In this instance, the member for Calgary Centre interjected by removing the mute feature from his Zoom connection and speaking in a disparaging way toward the government, in a way that made it impossible for all members who are logged in virtually to hear any of the commentary. I do not believe that the member for Calgary Centre's voice is any more important than any of the 338 members of Parliament.

I would ask that you advise him, Mr. Speaker, at the next opportunity, that it is not within our rules to be speaking while others have the floor.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for heckling with the mute button off. It was two words. I do not think the words were unparliamentary, as did my hon. colleague on the other side of the House, but I will take it under advisement and I will refrain.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind all hon. members that when someone is speaking, the minute they take the mute off, it brings attention to their microphones and cameras, so members might usurp the member who is speaking, which is not fair to the person speaking, regardless of what party they are in or what side of the House they sit on.

Out of respect, when members are in virtual mode, they should not unmute themselves unless they are about to speak after being acknowledged by the Speaker.

The House resumed consideration of the motion

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the pandemic on Canadian workers and businesses

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about the important issues facing our nation.

Obviously, the most significant thing taking place in our nation today is the coronavirus, and not only what Ottawa is doing but also the different jurisdictions that have responsibility. How are businesses, individuals and the many stakeholders responding to the coronavirus, and how, as a society, can we collectively minimize the damage to our people and economy? This is something that I believe Canadians want the House of Commons to focus its attention on.

Virtually since day one, the Prime Minister, cabinet and entire Liberal caucus have focused on doing what we can to contribute ongoing information, programs and support so that Canada is healthier from both a social and economic perspective. I am very proud of the work that we have done to date. Having said that, I recognize the challenges that lie ahead of us, as we are well into the second wave.

Today, with the second wave, given the number of cases that we have, my home province of Manitoba is probably more challenged than other provinces. It is something that all people are concerned about, and they want to know to what degree the government continues to be there in support.

I was encouraged, at least in part, by the official opposition bringing forward a motion that is somewhat relevant to the coronavirus and to some of the things we have been doing as a government. The focus of the motion deals with small businesses. Let there be no doubt that we recognize the value of small businesses. In fact, in terms of dollar value, the most subscribed program is probably the wage subsidy program: a direct support program that allows employers to keep their employees during this very difficult time. I would suggest that it has literally saved millions of jobs and has afforded businesses the opportunity to survive. This particular program is not alone: We have seen other programs put forward by the Government of Canada, working with many stakeholders throughout our country, to ensure that we can protect and support people wherever possible.

However, to address the statement that we needed to realize this a year ago, these programs did not exist. It was not until March and April that we were put into this position of needing to get programs established. At the earliest, it was in January that people were starting to think of how we were going to support our communities in order to get through an anticipated pandemic. In a relatively short period of time, with the support of so many, we created a litany of programs to protect the people of Canada and to support and protect our businesses.

Every day, we are in contact with small businesses, individual Canadians and a wide spectrum of stakeholders to ensure that our programs continue to evolve. The wage loss subsidy program and the CERB both received modifications.

When a program is established, virtually from nothing, we can anticipate there will be a need for changes. We will not necessarily have a perfect program from day one. I am very happy to say that, through this time, we have seen amendments to programs that affect individuals and businesses, and we continue to see some modifications.

In the bigger picture, we also see how the federal government has very successfully worked with provincial governments. One needs only to look at the restart program, which gave $19 billion to support provinces. The government worked with them to ensure the economy would be in a better position as it reopened. We recognize the important roles other jurisdictions, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and so many others have in protecting our communities, whether individuals or businesses.

Earlier today I referred to small businesses being more than what most people might think. For example, I think social enterprises are great employers and contribute immensely to our communities.

Two weeks ago I mentioned Folklorama in the city of Winnipeg, and how the Minister of Heritage had a meeting with some of its representatives. Yesterday I had the opportunity, with the Prime Minister, to meet with representatives from Folklorama. Folklorama is an organization in Winnipeg that has been around for over 50 years. It has provided so much economic activity to the city of Winnipeg over the years and has been absolutely incredible. It also provides social benefits for not only our city but our country in terms of diversification.

Through meetings, whether with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Heritage, Folklorama, other organizations, small companies or large companies, we understand and recognize the important role the government has to play in this pandemic. We have understood that from day one, and this government has been there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

I listened to the speeches across the way, and one wonders where the members have been. With many of their comments, I would suggest, they are trying to give false impressions, as if the Government of Canada has not been there. I would challenge members to look at any other jurisdiction within Canada and the number of resources, whether financial resources or the development of programs, and find an area where a government has been as thorough in delivering for Canadians in all aspects of society.

We needed to do that. As a government, it was important for us to step up and protect the interests of Canadians in all regions of our country. What would have happened had we not done that? The consequences would have been horrendous to our economy and people in many different ways.

Unfortunately, I have run out of time. Hopefully I will get a bit more time to expand in answers to questions and comments.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments, because we have been working together. I think everybody in the House agrees this is a time to put partisanship aside, which is what the motion is about today.

I was wondering if I could get the parliamentary secretary's opinion on the motion, because what it is asking is to call the CRA off, for a little while, for small businesses that are really struggling right now, and to be a bit more flexible. We have offered some suggestions in the past. Thankfully the government has listened to us, and I appreciate that very much, but I would like him to comment on exactly what the motion is.

In Oshawa, the Tartan Tavern closed down this past weekend. That is where I had my first legal beer 38 years ago, and it was a landmark in Oshawa. Businesses are really struggling and need that flexibility, and I ask the government to support the motion today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated virtually from day one, this government, even pre-pandemic, has been very supportive of Canada's small businesses. During the pandemic it has come up with a suite of programs. We have demonstrated our willingness not only to listen, but to make the program modifications necessary to protect both the short-term and long-term interests of small businesses.

The member and this motion deal with one aspect. It is interesting that they would bring this motion, because not that long ago members of the Conservative party were standing up and asking why we were handing out as much as we were without ensuring more accountability, on the issue of CERB payments. I will leave it with the individuals within the bureaucracy in the cabinet to come up with ideas of how we can continue to offer support, and try to provide my feedback directly to those people.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to zero in on the second half of this motion, which is asking the House to provide additional flexibility, especially in the rental assistance program. I appreciate that these programs were delivered in an unprecedented time, and they did need some tinkering. I guess the problem I have is that we have been calling for improvements on this program for quite some time now, and for some small businesses it is already too late.

We have had numerous members of the opposition identify problems with this program for many months. Why are we only now starting to talk about adding flexibility to the program, when it is the month of November?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member should be aware that when we brought in the suite of programs to support Canadians and businesses, small and large alike, they were put together relatively quickly because of the pandemic. Even though we have seen those programs implemented, modifications to the programs have taken place relatively quickly.

What the member is referring to is that there might be specific asks in certain areas, and some might be more challenging than others. Any sort of modification usually ends up with a fairly significant consequence. As time goes on, there have been changes, and I suspect there will continue to be changes going forward.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is similar to my colleague's.

From the outset, the hon. member for Joliette has repeatedly called within the Standing Committee on Finance for changes to the commercial rent assistance program to make it more flexible. It is now expected that there will be a change and that the transfer between the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will take place.

When and how will this be done? We need to avoid rough patches and make sure that companies do not end up paying more.