House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I agree with the sentiments he expressed. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, which finally adopted a motion calling for the Auditor General to receive all the funding she needs to carry out audits.

We know that even in cases where officials noticed potential fraud, the government told them to send out the cheques anyway. We also know that some inmates got cheques. These are precisely the reasons why the Auditor General ought to receive all the funding she needs to audit this spending and make sure that a lot of this money did not go to fraudsters.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for Carleton for flagging some of the issues that have been very important to people in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona.

Seeing how accommodating and friendly the Conservatives and the Bloc are today and how happy they are to get along, my question is the this. Instead of cutting services that Canadian families rely upon, would the Conservatives support the NDP's call for a wealth tax on the super-rich, which would raise $6 billion a year, and crack down on the estimated $25 billion in corporate taxes that we lose to tax havens each year?

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Chair, of course we support cracking down on tax havens. Everyone should pay what they owe and anyone who is breaking the law to avoid doing so should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The New Democrats are fond of coming up with other schemes they claim will raise revenue. They never actually do, in practice.

We propose that if we want to stop handing money to the rich, we should stop the corporate welfare schemes that use taxpayer money to fill the pockets of wealthy and influential people. Let us cancel the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank, which is nothing more than a backstop of profits for large construction and private equity firms. Let us cancel handouts to firms like Loblaws, Mastercard, Bombardier and others that—

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes

Unfortunately, the time is up.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair—

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising on a point of privilege.

Distribution of Fiscal DocumentPrivilegeGovernment Orders

July 8th, 2020 / 3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Chair, I will make this quick. I did not mean to interrupt my Bloc colleague and I apologize.

I have noticed that many people in the chamber, in this committee, have a document. I would presume the document is a fiscal update that is allowing them to ask questions and see details that were not in the minister's statement, such as the deficit numbers. I looked at my emails, thinking that surely the government would care about the couple of hundred-plus of us who are not in the chamber and distribute that document to us so we could clearly see what was happening and be on an equal playing field with respect to our opportunity to ask questions. As a virtual committee member today, I truly feel my privileges have been violated by not having been provided that document.

Distribution of Fiscal DocumentPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Chair, I rise to address the concern. The member raises a valid point. Everything was shared with all parties under embargo earlier today. From what I understand, that included electronic copies. Therefore, all members do have access to it. I am not 100% sure how the respective caucuses and independents received it, but I believe the information was made available.

Distribution of Fiscal DocumentPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes

It is a question that was raised a bit earlier as well. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, the document was shared with the party leaders and I would anticipate that the parties are distributing or have distributed it to their members. I know the document is public.

We will continue on. I will double check to determine where the document is with the other parties at this point, and whether or not it has actually been distributed.

The House resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Government Business No. 8, Mrs. Carol Hughes in the chair.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

Whereas the fiscal snapshot identifies “increased capacity at the Privy Council Office”, this measure would increase the capacity of the Privy Council Office to ensure that it can continue to meet its mandate following the creation of the role of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and International Trade in the amount of $7 million next year and $15 million for each year after that, the House calls on the government to transfer this full sum from the Office of the Privy Council to the Office of the Auditor General.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes

As was mentioned earlier today, we are doing things a bit differently because of the format we are in. Therefore, at this point I am going to ask all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion to please say nay. Also, I would ask anybody who is saying no virtually to raise the hand on his or her virtual screen. That would be of assistance.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair, we have been asking for this fiscal update since May, as have the other opposition parties and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Finally we have it.

Once again, the government chose to notify the finance community before informing the House. As everyone knows, the news was announced by Bloomberg.

To be honest, the Bloc Québécois did not have particularly high expectations concerning today’s fiscal update. However, we were still disappointed by the economic portrait presented. Basically, the document lists the measures announced and their impact on finances. That is about it.

We made several requests concerning the fiscal update. First, we asked for an unconditional transfer of $14 billion to the provinces and to Quebec. We did not get it. The $14 billion is there, but so are the conditions.

We then asked that changes be made to the Canada emergency response benefit to encourage workers to return to work. We did not get that, either. We also asked for changes to the Canada emergency wage subsidy so that it would include seasonal industries such as tourism and culture. We did not get that, either.

From reading the economic snapshot, one would think we are still in April, but we are in July. Businesses have started reopening. The economic recovery is now under way. It is time to adjust the programs. Today’s fiscal update was a golden opportunity to introduce these types of changes, but that is not what happened.

Take, for example, the Canada emergency response benefit. In my opinion, the CERB is a public health measure. We asked people to stay home and not go to work. In return, the government would pay them $2,000 a month. However, as businesses begin to reopen and the economy starts picking up, the government needs to change its message. It is high time we amended the Canada emergency response benefit.

Right now, workers who earn one dollar more than the allowable $1,000 are ineligible for the CERB. Right now, we are at the economic recovery stage, not the economic stimulus stage, and yet people who earn one dollar more are not entitled to the CERB. That makes no sense.

Here is the situation: The unemployment rate is around 12%, which is very high. If health measures were put in place, many people could go back to work. The chambers of commerce have told us that their members are having a hard time finding employees because the government still has not made any changes to the Canada emergency response benefit. Basically, the message the government is sending is that workers should still be staying home, as they were doing in April. It makes no sense.

We have been asking the government to make changes to the CERB since March. Earlier, the leader of the Conservative Party said that he was the one who first made that proposal. When an idea is good, it should be spread far and wide, regardless of who thought of it first.

The principle behind the CERB should be the same as the one behind employment insurance. In the progressive EI system, if a person earns more than $1,000, that person does not lose everything. For example, Canadians could keep $0.50 for every additional dollar earned.

It has been almost four months now that the government has been telling us that that is too complicated. This type of excuse can work for one or two weeks, maybe even three, but four months is much too long. That does not fly.

The same is true for the Canada emergency wage subsidy. The government needs to change it. If an employer is losing 30%, it is entitled to the wage benefit. However, if it is losing 29%, it is no longer entitled to it. It makes no sense.

We understand that, in the early days, we needed to establish certain criteria, given the urgency of the situation. We even changed the percentage to 15% for the first month. It has been this way for a number of months now, and it is time for a change. We need to enhance, improve the measures.

We also need to change the Canada emergency wage subsidy to give seasonal industries, such as tourism and culture, access to it. The solution is simple. In fact, the solution is so simple that the government itself proposed it a month ago, but still has not done anything about it. The solution was to pay out the wage subsidy based on last year’s salaries rather than on those earned in February when seasonal industries were obviously not operating. That was part of Bill C-17, which was tabled in the House a month ago but still has not been passed.

Why was Bill C-17 not passed?

Bill C-17 was not passed simply because the government chose to sulk. The government wanted the House to pass the bill immediately as it was, word for word, or it would not introduce the bill. We did not have the right to amend it or even debate it. Nothing. Nada. We had to either take it or leave it. It had to be done. This minority government wants to play the dictator's apprentice. It is ridiculous. On a personal note, I want to say that, when a person is asked what country or regime he admires and he answers, “China”, that may be a sign that person wants to play the dictator's apprentice. That is what we are seeing here.

We are still waiting impatiently for the government to make the changes to the wage subsidy, including the change needed for Airbus to have access to it, even though some of the money invested in that project comes from the public purse. We know that things are not going well for the aerospace industry. We need to change that.

While entire sectors of our economy do not have access to the wage subsidy, the Liberal Party has both hands in the cookie jar. In this case, I would have to say that the pandemic is being used as an excuse. It is a terrible ethical issue. While the Liberal Party is benefiting from the wage subsidy, it is dragging its feet. Things have been dragging on for a month for entire sectors of our economy. It is shameful and it needs to change.

What we see in the document is somewhat contradictory. The government still has not passed Bill C-17, but it has chosen to take today’s economic update into account in its financial valuations. It is high time that we debate Bill C-17. Like my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands of the Green Party was saying earlier, on page 20 there is a list of assistance measures for people with disabilities. As we know, this is one of the population groups that have been most affected by the pandemic. The government acknowledges that in its document.

Since we have a duty and a right to study Bill C-17, when will the government submit it for debate so that we can make the necessary amendments and pass it? We have been waiting for a month.

Another subject keeps coming up: the overpayment of benefits. There have been cases of fraud, and the government said that it would be recovering those amounts. There is not one line about this in today’s fiscal snapshot. There is a story I would like to tell. It is a powerful one, so I would advise members hang on to their hats. During the technical briefing the government gave to the opposition parties earlier today, I asked a question about this. I was met with silence, and someone exclaimed, “What the fudge!” That is what we got as an answer. Not the best answer ever, I dare say. This is not a joke. The Liberals wondered whether they had forgotten to address the issue. What happened? Another missed opportunity.

As we expected, the document confirms that we have an enormous debt. The deficit so far is $343 billion. That is what it will be on March 31, 2021, if no further funds are voted, there is no second wave and no other measures are put in place between now and then. That is the minimum. That is where we are, and it is obviously troubling.

There is a shocking and interesting bit of information in this document. Servicing the debt, or the interest payments on the debt, goes down because the interest rates dropped as a result of the massive support from the Bank of Canada and all the central banks in the world that have done this with their economy. In the short term and in the long term as well we hope, we are talking about 10- to 30-year bonds that will help lower the interest payments.

Like the other G7 and G20 countries, the government went into serious debt to support the economy during the pandemic. As they say, it was the least bad solution.

That kind of deficit could be justified if we spend the money properly. That is what we are asking for: proper spending. Let me explain. I spoke about this earlier in my speech. An unconditional transfer of $14 billion would be proper spending. Changing the Canada emergency response benefit to include an incentive to work would be proper spending. The government must do this as soon as possible. We were expecting to see that in today’s document. Also, the Canada emergency wage subsidy should be extended to seasonal sectors such as tourism and culture.

Given our historic deficit, the government is offering a simple, perhaps even simplistic, solution: government bonds. As I said earlier, these are significant, long term bonds, over 10 to 30 years. We are not talking about income growth.

In the document, the government says that it will not do anything more about tax evasion or tax avoidance or to make web giants GAFAM pay their share of taxes and fees. The government’s message today is clear. Web giants, banks and multinationals that do not pay their share of taxes will not have to start doing so, and the record debt we are seeing will not change a thing. It is a serious issue and it needs to change. The Bloc can be counted on to continue bringing pressure to bear.

The government based its economic forecast on private sector forecasts and is telling us that there will be a 6.8% decrease in activity this year, offset by 5.5% growth in 2021. At the end of next year, when we compare these numbers, we still will not be where we were before the COVID-19 crisis. That is what economists call the inverse square root. What does that mean? It goes down, it goes up, but then it stalls at a lower level than before. It is troubling. The government should have reduced uncertainty as much as possible by immediately announcing changes to its assistance programs, like we have been saying all day. Another important measure would have been to extend the assistance over a longer period for economic sectors we need to support and that will be in difficulty for a longer time, such as aerospace and culture. We need to reduce the uncertainty.

In its fiscal snapshot, the government acknowledges what businesses have been telling us. Its rent assistance program is not working. How many applications for rent assistance have been filed across the country? Only 29,000. When we compare this with the $40,000 emergency loans, that is almost $700,000. The rent assistance program is used almost 25 times less often. That sends a very clear message. The government published the numbers in its document. We need to review and enhance the program, since it does not make sense that it would be used 25 times less often.

Given the spike in health care costs, Quebec and the provinces will be hit with quite a bill. The $14 billion announced will cover only some of the new costs. The conditions imposed in this situation have no other purpose than to further centralize power in our federation by undermining the provinces’ jurisdictions.

The health care system was already underfinanced before the pandemic. The Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated that very clearly. As always, the power lies with the federal government, even if Quebec and the provinces are spending huge amounts. Since Lester B. Pearson in 1964, there has not been a single transfer of a single tax point from the federal government to the provinces, despite the fact that the most costly sectors, namely health, education and social services, are under provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government negotiates agreements piecemeal. It systematically infringes on provincial jurisdiction by imposing conditions. It has been reducing transfers while increasing conditions and its interference. This has to stop. It does not work and it has gone on long enough. We see it on the ground: Our public services are gasping for air, and the federal government is doing nothing to help.

Ottawa's handling of this crisis is amplifying centralization and it needs to stop. Again, we are calling on the government, as a gesture of good faith, to remove the conditions attached to the $14 billion and to transfer the money as soon as possible. That would be a step in the right direction.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

To hear him tell it, one would think that the pandemic was pretty much over, that we could all get back to work and that the government could adjust all of the existing programs. My colleague is well aware that it would be very complicated for the government to adjust each one of the benefits in a crisis like this. We have adjusted each program week by week.

The message my colleague is sending his constituents is to stay home, not go back to work, and collect the $2,000 a month. That is not what we are telling people in my riding. We are telling them to go out and work. People should not drop a job they have had for a year or two for just a month's worth of benefits.

Is my colleague opposite aware that it would have been more complicated to adjust the Canada emergency response benefit than to offer what we have offered over the past four months?

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair, adjusting the support measures is what we have been asking for for four months. Saying it would be too complicated is an excuse that works for the first couple of weeks. Today, it no longer passes muster.

I think my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite Nation, which is a beautiful part of Quebec that is well worth a visit, did not quite understand my speech. What we are asking the government to do is adjust the measures in order to incentivize employees to go back to work. What we disapprove of is what the government is doing right now, namely providing a “disincentive” to work. This needs to change.

This pandemic is not over yet. There could even be a second wave. I find it appalling that the document tabled today includes half a page of concerns about a resurgence and a second wave. The government says it is very worried about that, but it offers no figures on that half page. When we look at all the budget measures it announced, we see no contingency fund for responding to a second wave.

Frankly, I think my colleague should go back and read his own party's document again.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Madam Chair, it is fascinating to see the Bloc Québécois align closer to the Conservatives on economic issues. It is not a matter of who has proposed what in the past. This is about making suggestions to the government so that people can get back to work. I want to commend the members of the Bloc Québécois, who want to work on this with us to push Quebec's economy forward.

Everyone knows that we are definitely not through this pandemic yet. The $343 billion announced today does not include a potential recovery plan. I would like to ask my colleague his thoughts on that.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his comments and question.

This $343 billion is almost virtual, not because it will not have to be repaid, but because it is a minimum. I am willing to bet that on March 31 of next year it will be more than $343 billion.

The announced $343 billion seems to imply that between now and next March the government is not going to spend a nickel more than what is set out in Bill C-17. What will happen if there is a second wave? Stimulus measures will be needed. We can think of all the important sectors of the economy and the green economy. Indeed, I am convinced that my colleague agrees that it is important to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. It could be an investment in the economy of tomorrow. I see that my colleague is nodding.

It will be more than that, but, as they say, it is the lesser of two evils in the current situation. If this money stimulates the economy and creates a good foundation for building the economy of the future, let us move forward, but it has to be done right. We will be keeping an eye on them.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Chair, I really enjoy working with my colleague. He contributes a great deal to the Standing Committee on Finance. As the member knows, we have talked about that shortfall at several meetings. This government is not doing anything to address tax havens and tax loopholes and refuses to tax web giants. If those things were addressed, we would be able to invest more to help people.

Would my colleague agree that we need to tackle these income tax issues and create a fair tax system so that we can invest adequately to help people everywhere?

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague. Clearly, it is unacceptable that we have a tax system that allows the wealthiest, the biggest, the strongest, the richest people and companies to contribute less than the middle class. Come on. The government should be more like Robin Hood and less like the Sheriff of Nottingham. Let us change that. Since I was elected in 2015, I have been fighting for a fairer system, one that prohibits the use of tax havens. This practice is unacceptable and immoral, and yet it is still legal.

Government spending has skyrocketed because of the pandemic. The deficit has reached $343 billion, and yet there are no plans to crack down on these big profiteers. That is unacceptable. Let us change that immediately.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Chair, I know that my colleague from Joliette is very familiar with the living conditions of people with disabilities. Day after day, they have to adjust to life, and it is not easy.

The Bloc Québécois proposed that the government introduce just a part of Bill C-17 today to deal specifically with the benefit that could be given to people living with disabilities.

Does my colleague feel reassured after reading the economic snapshot presented here today?

Does he really think that the government will finally see the light and give benefits to all those living with a disability?

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her question and for her particular concern for people living with disabilities.

I do not feel at all reassured because this bill should have been introduced, debated, amended as needed and then passed in the House a month ago. There was a broad consensus in the House to implement this benefit, but the government was sulking. It did not want any changes to be made to the bill. We had to take it or leave it. However, this is a minority government, and that is not how things work.

Today, the government had the chance to redeem itself by introducing that part of the bill. The government could have done that, but it did not. When will it do that? It is up to the government to decide but, even if it had done so today, it would have been too late.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for his speech.

I would like to know what he thinks about the idea of having a guaranteed liveable income program. As he said, under the Canada emergency response benefit people are not motivated to return to work. With a guaranteed liveable income, there would no longer be any reason to avoid working more than the current program allows.

Government Business No. 8Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Chair, a guaranteed liveable income is an interesting idea that is worth debating. However, under this current federation model, I find that most of the support measures for social services are covered by Quebec and the provinces, even though Ottawa provides a portion of them.

This overlap means that such a measure would require an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces. As we see with health care, housing or infrastructure, as soon as Ottawa has to provide some of the funding, it takes years to reach an agreement. Ottawa imposes its conditions and is not satisfied.

We are still waiting for social housing transfers, even though the agreement was signed two years ago, if I am not mistaken. We were sure that this would be resolved before the election over a year ago. Unfortunately, in Quebec, the best way to get a guaranteed liveable income would be to start by getting our independence.