Bill C-14 (Historical)

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to provide additional support to families with young children as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses. It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to provide a similar benefit in respect of young children under that Act. As part of the Government’s response to COVID-19, it amends the Income Tax Act to provide that an expense can qualify as a qualifying rent expense for the purposes of the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS) when it becomes due rather than when it is paid, provided certain conditions are met.
Part 2 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on a guaranteed student loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by the borrower.
Part 3 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on a student loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by the borrower.
Part 4 amends the Apprentice Loans Act to provide that, during the period that begins on April 1, 2021 and ends on March 31, 2022, no interest is payable by a borrower on an apprentice loan and no amount on account of interest is required to be paid by a borrower.
Part 5 amends the Food and Drugs Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations
(a) requiring persons to provide information to the Minister of Health; and
(b) preventing shortages of therapeutic products in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.
It also amends that Act to provide that any prescribed provisions of regulations made under that Act apply to food, drugs, cosmetics and devices intended for export that would otherwise be exempt from the application of that Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund
(a) to the Government of Canada’s regional development agencies for the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund;
(b) in respect of specified initiatives related to health; and
(c) for the purpose of making income support payments under section 4 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act.
Part 7 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings and include certain borrowings that were previously excluded in the calculation of that amount. It also makes a related amendment to the Financial Administration Act.

Carbon Pricing

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of Canada's work to combat climate change is putting a price on carbon pollution.

A price on carbon provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal carbon pollution pricing system has two components: a regulatory system for large industry, known as the output-based pricing system; and a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, otherwise known as a fuel charge.

The latter applies in the province of Saskatchewan, which the member for Souris—Moose Mountain represents. Consumers do not pay the fuel charge directly to the federal government. Furthermore, the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system remain in the province or territory of origin. In the case of Saskatchewan, approximately 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge are returned to residents through climate action incentive payments.

The remaining fuel charge proceeds are used to support small businesses, schools, universities, municipalities and indigenous groups. Fuel producers and distributors are generally required to pay the fuel charge and, as a result, the price paid by consumers on goods and services would usually have the cost of the fuel charge embedded.

With respect to the GST-HST, it is calculated on the final amount charged for a good or service. The general rule that was adopted at the inception of the GST in 1991 is that this final amount includes other taxes, levies and charges that apply to the good or service, and that may be embedded in the final price. This includes the fuel charge as part of the federal carbon pollution pricing system.

This long-standing approach to calculating the GST-HST helps to maintain the broad-based nature of the tax and ensures that tax is applied evenly across goods and services consumed in Canada. It also simplifies the vendor's calculation of the amount of tax payable, since the vendor is not required to back out other taxes, levies or charges at the point of sale in order to determine the amount of GST-HST payable.

The Government of Canada has been clear that it should not be free to pollute in Canada. However, I want to strongly emphasize that the government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. I know that all members are concerned about the state of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada right now. To truly support small businesses during this unprecedented time, I urge all members to come together to support the passage of Bill C-14 so that we can continue to provide targeted and meaningful investments to help Canadians who need them the most.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, a while back, I asked a question about the Liberal government collecting GST on the carbon tax. In my question, I also referenced a constituent, a small business owner, who had already paid over $2,500 in GST on the carbon tax since April 2019.

The answer I received from the Minister of Finance was extremely disappointing. Instead of addressing the actual issue of GST being charged on top of the carbon tax, she started talking about Bill C-14, which was completely unrelated to the question I posed. Her flippant non-answer was insulting to many Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet while their household bills are increasing. I hope the Liberals will stop and listen to someone other than themselves.

In simple terms, the question was about charging the GST, a federal tax, on the carbon tax, another federal tax, and why top finance officials are saying that they don’t pay it, yet small businesses are paying it.

The minister’s non-answer is unfortunately a continuing trend. In September, I submitted an Order Paper question requesting the total amount of GST collected on the carbon tax since January 2017. The response I received was convoluted and did not provide any of the actual numbers requested. Instead, it pointed me to the annual report that was about to be released.

That annual report was also extremely convoluted and did not provide the breakdown of numbers I had asked for, further proving to me that the government is doing everything it can to sweep the fact that it collects GST on the carbon tax under the rug. If Liberals are so proud of the tax regime they have created, why will they not give us the numbers? In my view, they are clearly trying to hide the tax, hoping that if people do not see it, it does not happen.

Perhaps it is because they do not actually understand the numbers themselves. The whole reason I asked this question was because the top finance official who was testifying at committee did not know that GST was charged on top of the carbon tax. He answered “no” when asked the question directly. How are Canadians to trust the government has their best interests at heart when its experts do not even know how its programs work?

The constituent I mentioned also owns a small trucking company that services the oil and gas industry. She has been tracking the amount of GST she has been charged on the carbon tax just for diesel fuel alone, and she has serious concerns about the viability of her business going forward. By the time the carbon tax reaches $170 dollars per tonne in 2030, she may already have had to shut down for good. This is the case for many small business owners.

That is not what the government wants, is it? Perhaps that is another debate for another time.

The fact of the matter is that rural Canadians are being hit hard by the carbon tax and the GST that is being charged on top of it. In Saskatchewan, it is not uncommon to have to drive one or two hours just to attend a doctor’s appointment, something that the urban population typically does not have to consider. Rural Canadians pay for more fuel. In turn, they pay more carbon tax, and in turn, more GST on that carbon tax.

Another matter to consider is the weather. In Saskatchewan it can get as cold as -50°C in the winter. Heating a home gets expensive, and these costs are then compounded by the carbon tax and the GST that comes with it. Again, these are costs that are unique to those who live in areas such as the Prairies and not those who live in downtown Toronto, where it rarely dips below -10°C.

The last thing that Canadians need right now is more uncertainty about the future, and that includes the amount of taxes they are being charged, not to mention the taxes on those taxes. Contrary to what the Liberals might think, we understand that emissions need to be reduced, but we do not think that it should be done on the backs of small business owners or at the expense of our economy.

We in Saskatchewan are world leaders in carbon capture technology, but we get no credit for it, not to mention the excellent land stewardship of our farmers and ranchers, who also do not get credit—

Industry, Science and Technology

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

Madam Speaker, it truly is amazing when we stop and think about it. In the last number of months, we have seen the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continue to behave in an irresponsible manner and play a very destructive role in the House of Commons. Even in the question that I just finished posing to the member, he tried to give the impression that the government is not passing legislation.

The Government of Canada has been very much focused on Canadians and the pandemic, and bringing forward legislation that is going to have the backs of Canadians in terms of supporting them, whether it is legislation like Bill C-14 or the budget we just voted on yesterday. That has been the priority for Canadians.

There are other important issues that the Government of Canada has been trying to get through the House of Commons. For example, today we have legislation on net-zero emissions. That is something that is important to our environment. I realize that the Conservative Party, as a group, has said that the environment is not an issue. However, recently we had the Conservative leader saying that the price on pollution is a positive thing.

Conservatives do not want to debate the important issues that need to be debated and that Canadians want to see leadership on. The Government of Canada is prepared to provide that leadership. The official opposition, I believe, will be found in need and lacking in its performance.

The issue within the report today is important. There is no doubt about that. There are lots of reports out there that are important, but it is time that we see the official opposition recognize what Canadians want us to recognize, which is the important issues of the day that the House of Commons needs to deal with, and stop playing the destructive force it has been playing for the last number of months. I believe there is a need for us to get back to an agenda that deals with the issues for Canadians.

Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Finance

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely false that the Conservative Party supported CERB at the outset of this pandemic. In fact, their leader continues to comment negatively about this program that kept so many households fed during the worst of this pandemic.

If he is concerned about the public health response, just hours ago that member and his entire caucus voted against Bill C-14, after delaying it for months, which included $500 million to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities and additional medical research.

To lay this squarely at the feet of the federal government is absolutely ludicrous. I will point out the fact that it is the same federal government that serves his province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and serves my province of Nova Scotia where we have single digit cases that are tied to travel.

With respect, if provincial governments continued to work with the federal government to offer a world leading public health response as we have had in Atlantic Canada, we would be in a much better place today than we are across the board. I will assure the hon. member that Monday's budget—

Tourism Industry

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are very difficult times for all businesses. I know they are especially difficult for tourism operators in northern Ontario. Many of these tourism operators depend on the U.S. market to thrive.

Since the start of the pandemic, we provided financial support to businesses, organizations and communities in northern Ontario. Through the RRRF alone, we have provided businesses and not-for-profit organizations across northern Ontario with more than $70 million.

As noted, Bill C-14, which is being debated in the House, has millions and millions of more dollars contained within it to support the tourism industry. I would encourage the hon. member opposite in this virtual House to support Bill C-14 and encourage the Conservative caucus to also get on board, because it has been many months where that money has not been able to get through the system without the Conservatives supporting it.

Again, I encourage the member to have the Conservative caucus pass Bill C-14 expeditiously, so we can unlock the millions and millions of dollars of support for the tourism sector, including businesses, organizations and communities across northern Ontario.

Seniors

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre is right. As a result of the pandemic, seniors have experienced significant negative impacts. To help combat the isolation they have faced during the pandemic, we invested millions more into the new horizons for seniors program. In total, we have funded 5,000 community support projects across the country during the pandemic to help seniors stay connected and supported.

I want to thank the organizations, like those in my colleague's riding, that stepped up to serve seniors with projects during this extraordinarily challenging time. Together, we can make a difference in the lives of seniors. I look forward to the opposition supporting Bill C-14 to get it through to the other place as soon as possible.

Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is just not true. I spoke earlier today on Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is all about providing direct financial support to Canadians. The Conservatives continue to play their games in regards to that. As a government in a minority situation, we need the opposition to at least play ball at times to allow us to get this important legislation passed so that we can directly support Canadians.

I think that the Conservatives have kind of hoodwinked the other opposition parties to buy into the need to search under every rock they can find to see how they can paint some scary scenario of corruption when the corruption is just not there. I would recommend that if my Conservative friends spent just as much time and focus on minimizing the coronavirus, and showed their actions in doing that, they would be farther ahead.

Health

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that we can never be in this position again. That is why we are committing over $690 million in the fall economic statement.

I look forward to the member's support for the passage of Bill C-14. This is, of course, an investment in the Public Health Agency of Canada, to continue its hard work. As I have mentioned, it has added well over 1,000 employees since the beginning of the pandemic, and we will stop at nothing to ensure we have a world-class public health agency.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, we have a huge debt of gratitude to the civil servants who have worked so hard throughout the pandemic to protect Canadians.

In fact, the Public Health Agency of Canada has expanded by more than 1,000 employees, including 150 new scientists. There is $690.7 million invested in PHAC over two years in the fall 2020 economic statement.

I look forward to the member opposite's support for passing Bill C-14.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National Defence

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues are doing well on this lovely spring day in the province of Ontario and in York region.

I will begin by going back to the heart of what brings us here again today. Why is that important? It is because I want to remind all my dear colleagues of the colossal effort, the incredible work, the collaborative work, as well as the sheer transparency that has already gone into the production of documents for the study of the government's decision to enter into a contribution agreement with the WE organization to administer the Canada student service grant.

Let us review everything the government has done to support the different committees studying this matter.

The ethics committee has held hundreds of hours in meetings on the subject of the Canada student services grant. The Prime Minister testified at the finance committee on this matter. I was there. The Prime Minister's chief of staff testified at the finance committee on this matter. Again, I was there. The Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth testified before the ethics committee as well as at the finance committee. The Clerk of the Privy Council testified before the ethics committee and before the finance committee. Even the Kielburgers testified multiple times at various committees. I believe the time allotted for the Kielburgers has reached almost 10 hours of testimony.

An unprecedented waiver of cabinet confidence was put into place to facilitate the disclosure of documents. Over 5,000 pages of documents were provided to various parliamentary committees. Despite opposition attempts to move privilege and contempt motions, the law clerk of the House of Commons verified that the government abided by the rule of law in providing these documents to the committees.

The Conservatives seem suddenly interested in supports for students, but it is surprising. Sadly, the Conservatives voted against Bill C-14 and the relief from federal interest on loans for students contained within that bill.

Let me make it clear. The heart of what we are doing as a government, and what I believe all of us as members of Parliament should be focused on during this most extraordinary period of time in the world's history, is getting through COVID-19 and ensuring our communities, businesses and our economy are back. We know Canadians have the potential, and we need to stand with them and beside them as our recovery continues.

The motion before us today calls on a number of ministerial staff to appear before committees. I would like state categorically that ministers are directly accountable to Parliament on the administration and duties exercised within their departments and for the actions of the political staff in their political offices.

The concept is not a new one. Allow me to quote the former prime minister in 2006, who stated the following in a document called “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers”.

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their responsibilities whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise.... Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.

Ministerial staff, like public servants, are not accountable to Parliament for government policy decisions or operations. Public servants may be called to testify at committee on the implementation of policy decisions, but must defer to ministers to answer questions on policy and decisions. In the case of ministerial staffers, the scope of what information they have is more restricted than public servants since they are not involved in the operations of the department.

As a government, we had sent an exempt staff member to testify at committee, and we saw what happened. The staffer was badgered by the Conservatives, repeatedly interrupted, accused of a cover-up, accused of being untruthful and accused of something that was demonstrably false and easily verified with a simple Google search. It is evident that the Conservatives are grasping at straws, and I would say grasping at air.

All the questions about the issues in today's motion have been asked and answered and all the requested documents have been provided. Multiple ministers, including the Prime Minister, have appeared before committees on this issue. I can understand that the Conservatives are frustrated by the fact that the government has answered every question asked, but at this point, I think we can all see that this is just the Conservative ethics critic and the member for Carleton creating work for themselves.

In fact, back in 2014, the member for Carleton said that the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

Our government co-operated and supported the committees in their important work. When documents were requested, they were provided. Public servants acted professionally to do that. When they did not disclose everything, the Conservatives attacked them for doing their job.

The opposition keeps complaining about how the federal government discloses documents, but they recognized one very simple fact when they were in power. I would like to quote Lawrence Cannon, former foreign affairs minister under Stephen Harper, who said, “officials will provide all legally available documents. Officials have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Redactions are done by independent, non-partisan public servants whose only interest is the application of the law”.

By their actions, the Conservatives are showing us that they want to undermine public confidence in our institutions.

I would like to remind the House of the kind of behaviour the opposition has shown Canadians they can expect from it. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party posted the telephone number of a private company on social media and encouraged Canadians to call and demand that the company break Canada's privacy laws and release information. This led to harassment and personal threats that left employees fearing for their personal safety and required the police to get involved. The Conservative ethics critic sent a letter to a private company asking it to break the law. There have been numerous attempts at committee to compel the personal financial information of private citizens.

While the opposition may try to play political games and to create doubt in the public's mind with regard to the independence and the strength of our institutions, on this side of the House, we will stay laser focused on Canadians regardless of the Conservative Party's petty politics.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member's parliamentary work, having watched her in action during the entirety of my time as an MP.

To be clear, I did not make the suggestion that it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister to appear before committees. In fact, I supported his appearance before the finance committee on some of the same issues for which they are seeking to have him come back. What I think is important, though, is that it is not necessarily the Prime Minister who is the appropriate person to testify before all committees in all circumstances. When I look at some of the individual staff members who the motion contemplates should actually be testifying, in many cases I think a different minister would actually be in a better position to do so than the Prime Minister.

I must say I am a bit jaded after my own experience, having been through one of these fishing expeditions at the finance committee. I literally sat through hundreds of hours, watched thousands of documents be produced and watched numerous ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, come to testify, only to see the opposition continue to try to drag the proceedings out, rather than getting on with the important work of government, including pre-budget consultations, and most recently, the consideration of Bill C-14.

Ethics

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, as committee members have requested, I have testified at committee and provided this information. As we have confirmed, the contribution agreement was negotiated between the professional non-partisan public service, and this information is all on the public record.

The member opposite seems to be very concerned about students and youth. It would be great if his Conservative colleagues would stop holding back Bill C-14 so that we could help students with interest relief and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as we are still in the midst of the pandemic and have a lot of work to do.

Health

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, this government has used science and evidence every step of the way to respond to COVID-19. I will also say that since the beginning of the pandemic, we have expanded the Public Health Agency of Canada by more than 1,000 employees to date, to bolster our capacity in a number of critical areas. I would urge the member opposite to stop stalling and pass Bill C-14, which would allot a further $690 million for the Public Health Agency of Canada, as dedicated in the fall 2020 economic statement.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020, and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Opposition Motion—Plan for Reopening the Economy

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been there for workers and businesses every step of the way. Through various COVID response measures like the caregiver response benefit, CERB, and the changes to EI, our government has made transformational changes in the shortest amount of time to make sure that we are there to support workers, businesses and Canadians, so that they do not have to choose between going to work or staying home because they might have been exposed to COVID-19.

We have been there every step of the way. We will continue to make investments, and I encourage all members to support Bill C-14, so that we can further those supports for Canadians.