Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to revise the eligibility criteria, as well as the level of subsidization, under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) as part of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019. It also extends the CEWS to June 30, 2021. The enactment further amends the Income Tax Act to introduce the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS) in order to support those hardest hit by the coronavirus disease 2019. This subsidy provides relief in respect of rent and interest on debt obligations incurred to acquire real property used by businesses, charities and not-for-profit organizations in the course of their businesses or other activities. The rent subsidy is effective as of September 27, 2020.

Income Tax Act

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy), be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will ask only those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to remind anyone in this place that we are battling an aggressive second wave of the coronavirus across Canada and around the world. In order for us to create the conditions for a robust and lasting economic recovery, we must take the right steps now to keep Canadians healthy and safe. We have to do that to flatten the curve, conquer the coronavirus and put it behind us.

While we are doing that, we must mitigate the economic harm of this pandemic in the short term, but also in the long term. That is why I am very happy to speak today in support of Bill C-9, a series of measures that, taken together, will provide Canadians and Canadian businesses with urgently needed support.

We realize that the best economic policy is a sound health policy. Life will not get back to normal in our factories, malls, movie theatres and restaurants until the virus has been eradicated.

We know that the best economic policy is a smart health policy. Normal life, including in our gyms, shopping malls, movie theatres and restaurants, will only resume in full measure once the virus is truly beaten.

The reality is that we must fight against any outbreak of COVID-19 regardless of where that might be. The way we fight this virus is by limiting our social contacts. That also means limiting our economic activities. In return, we must support Canadians and businesses when they face revenue losses. That is the only thing to do that is both fair and practical.

This is precisely what Bill C-9 would achieve.

First, it includes a new Canada emergency rent subsidy to provide direct rent support until June 2021 for businesses and other organizations that are losing revenue because of COVID-19. It allows for coverage of up to 65% of rent or mortgage payments for businesses that suffer a revenue drop of 70% or more. Support will be fixed at this level until December 19, 2020. For businesses suffering a revenue loss of less than 70%, there will still be support in proportion to how much revenue they have lost.

Like the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the new rent subsidy will be delivered through the Canada Revenue Agency, providing easy-to-access support directly to businesses. Critically, it will be directly available to organizations that rent their premises as opposed to requiring participation from their landlords.

In addition to the new rent subsidy, eligible businesses, non-profits and charities will have access to an additional 25% subsidy through our new lockdown support. If businesses have to close their doors because of an emergency COVID-19 lockdown restriction or have to significantly restrict their operations as mandated by a qualifying public health authority, these businesses will have the additional support they need and deserve.

As business circumstances improve, the levels of support we provide will decrease. If, sadly, circumstances worsen, the level of support provided will increase. That is built into these programs, which are designed to be flexible and to provide targeted support where it is needed most.

In addition, Bill C-9 would extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy through to June 2021. This fulfills a commitment in the Speech from the Throne. As we know, the wage subsidy was initially put in place for 12 weeks as an emergency measure to help employers keep workers on the payroll.

Starting last spring, we consulted widely with businesses and their employees. We were told loud and clear that the program was essential. Bill C-9 extends that essential support. It freezes the subsidy rate at 65% until December 19 to ensure that organizations can continue to pay their employees during the second wave.

Together, thanks to the measures in Bill C-9, Canadian businesses and organizations will receive the help they need when they need it. Let's be clear: these measures are based not just on our willingness to help people, but also on the economic realities.

Our economic objective is to stave off long-term economic damage, whether for a major manufacturer or a small family restaurant. Every business we lose creates a void in a community and the repercussions of that loss are felt throughout the country. We must put a stop to that.

Our public health objective is to support local public health officials in the agonizing decisions they must make, and are making, in our fight against the coronavirus. If public health officials anywhere in Canada believe that limited local lockdowns are the best way to stop the spread of the virus, our government will step in with additional economic support for affected businesses. That is what these programs, particularly the lockdown support, will provide.

As the Prime Minister has said, we can and will do everything in our power to help Canadians through this pandemic. In doing so, we will build the foundation for a strong, equitable recovery.

I would like to close by briefly addressing some economic fundamentals.

When COVID-19 hit, Canada had the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Today, following our country's most ambitious emergency response since World War II, we are still expected to have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our borrowing costs are at historic lows. Today's interest charges on Canada's debt as a share of GDP are the lowest in a century.

Our government is aware that the necessary fiscal measures for fighting the coronavirus are not unlimited. These are temporary but essential measures. These investments are a bridge to a safer and more prosperous future.

The proposed measures in Bill C-9, such as the new rent subsidy, the new lockdown support and the extended wage subsidy, are fundamental pillars of that bridge.

I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses as we confront this pandemic, as we conquer the virus and then, ultimately, as our economy comes roaring back. At a time when we see this global pandemic dividing so many societies around the world and thereby paralyzing their responses, I hope and trust Canadians will remain united.

We unanimously supported the income support measures. I hope we can do the same thing with these business support measures. We can get through this together.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the rent assistance program. Clearly, the program the government previously introduced was incredibly flawed, and I think everyone in the House knew it, as they were talking to the business owners who were struggling.

The government prorogued Parliament for six weeks to escape the WE scandal, and we have now been sitting in the House for almost seven weeks debating all sorts of legislation. The government says that supporting businesses through COVID is a priority, so why was Bill C-9 not introduced right after the Speech from the Throne? How many businesses in this country have had to shut down because of a program that was deeply flawed to start with and because of the government's unwillingness to move quickly to fix it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me start by emphasizing, which is really important for Canadian businesses to know, that these programs will be retroactive to September 27. Businesses can get rent support for the month of October. Of course, the previous CECRA program did cover the month of September, so businesses are getting support all the way through.

I would also like to emphasize that, taken together, the income supports the House has unanimously voted in favour of and the business support measures I am speaking about today, which I hope will be unanimously supported, will create an interlocking set of support measures that will be in place until next summer. These measures are targeted and flexible, and together they will get us through.

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

Madam Speaker, the question is quite simple. We welcome the bill, which includes several proposals the Bloc Québécois has made in the past. This shows that by working together we can come up with something worthwhile.

Nevertheless, there are some major oversights, such as air transportation, airports like the one in Quebec City, located very close to me, the aerospace industry, inter-regional transport, and so on.

Will there be any measures for these major sectors of our economy that have been very hard hit?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Our government's approach is to begin by providing general programs targeting all businesses across the country that have suffered losses. I think that is a good start. We have brought in measures to support Canadians until the fall of 2021.

Today we are talking about measures to support all businesses, depending on the losses they have suffered, until the summer of 2021. I agree that after we pass this bill, we can then think about what else can be done.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am a bit worried about her statement that these measures will not last forever.

Is she setting the stage for budget cuts and a return to austerity? Is that the Liberal plan?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think our government has been very clear. We understand that now is not the time for austerity. At the same time, the measures we are talking about today are targeted measures to help our economy during the fight against the coronavirus. I am convinced the fight will not go on forever, so these measures will not be needed forever.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today to support the timely passage of Bill C-9 by Parliament.

Today, I want to speak about some of the measures proposed in this bill that will help Canadians by providing essential support to get through the unprecedented economic crisis caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Since the start of the pandemic, the needs of businesses and workers have been the basis for our actions and our progressive plan for a robust and lasting recovery.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance stated, to get things right, we have to face the facts. The facts are that to slow the spread of the virus and eradicate it, we must follow public health guidelines, which require us to limit our social contacts and practise social distancing. That is the only way to do it.

This means that we need to ask people who are sick or who have sick children to stay home and not go to work. It means that we need to ask restaurants to serve fewer people or to shut down their dining rooms entirely. It means that we need to limit cross-border travel, even within our own country. It also means that we must ensure that Canadians have the support they need to abide by these restrictions.

It would be unrealistic and certainly unfair to ask workers to stay home or to ask businesses to close their doors without any financial compensation for their lost income. The government has made it clear that we are committed to helping all businesses and workers affected by the pandemic.

In our continued response to COVID-19 and as we look to recovery, we are bringing forward solutions that improve the quality of life of Canadians today and in the months and years to come.

We want to ensure that Canadians do not have to make impossible choices between paying their bills and putting food on the table. By supporting employers to keep their lights on and their employees on the payroll, by supporting workers and by supporting all Canadians through emergency response measures, that is exactly what we are doing.

We are here to bridge Canadians to the other side of this pandemic, and that is precisely what Bill C-9 would do.

The measures contained in Bill C-9 are the result of ongoing consultations with affected businesses. They include a new Canada emergency rent subsidy. This program would provide access to rent support until June 2021 for businesses and other organizations that have lost revenue in this crisis. It would do so by covering up to 65% of rent or mortgage interest payment for the hardest-hit businesses with a revenue decline of 70% or more until December 19. For businesses that have experienced a decline in revenue of less than 70%, there would be a gradually decreasing subsidy in line with the decline in revenues.

In short, all eligible businesses suffering a revenue drop would get rent support that is commensurate with how hard they have been hit. In this regard, the new rent subsidy proposed in Bill C-9 mirrors the successful Canada emergency wage subsidy. It would deliver more targeted accessible rent support to those who would need it most.

Like the wage subsidy, the proposed rent subsidy will be delivered through the CRA to make the application process easier for businesses. It will be available to businesses and other organizations that rent or own their premises. These measures will be directly available to tenants, without the need for intermediation by their landlords. The new rent subsidy represents an important new support to help businesses that are facing significant challenges as a result of COVID-19.

Bill C-9 would provide an additional 25% through the Canada emergency rent subsidy for qualifying organizations significantly affected by a mandatory public health order issued by a qualifying public health authority, as promised in the Speech from the Throne. We are calling this the lockdown support. We know that across the country, as we fight the second wave of COVID-19, public health officials have needed to impose new restrictions. That is their right to do, but it has cost businesses and their employees. By helping to offset up to 90% of rent and mortgage costs for hard-hit employers, the targeted support provided through the Canada emergency rent subsidy and the additional lockdown support would help businesses get through a new lockdown and help us all to do the right thing.

However, the fact is that rental costs are just one category of costs that businesses and employers are dealing with in the wake of COVID.

The need to cover payroll when consumer demand is low is another important part of the big picture. That is why we created the Canada emergency wage subsidy to help businesses, charities and not-for-profit organizations cover labour costs during the pandemic. The wage subsidy protects jobs because it enables those organizations to meet payroll and enables employers to rehire workers so they can continue to serve their communities and position themselves for a strong recovery.

Initially, the program was to last 12 weeks, from March 15 to June 6, 2020, and provided eligible employers with a 75% wage subsidy. We set out to improve the wage subsidy by consulting with businesses and employers. They told us that the subsidy was vital to keeping their employees on the payroll and that it had helped them rehire their workers. They shared ideas about how the wage subsidy could be adjusted to support businesses and workers as they continue to adapt to the challenges of COVID-19.

We listened and then did what was necessary. We made changes to the program so that all eligible employers, whose revenue was affected by the pandemic, now have access to it. We introduced a top-up subsidy for the most adversely affected employers.

In recognition of the vital support provided by the wage subsidy, we committed to extending it until June 2021, as we said we would in the throne speech. Over 3.8 million Canadian workers have already benefited from the wage subsidy.

Bill C-9 will make it possible to extend this vital support and make other changes to the program to ensure that it continues to help employers and that it responds to the changing health and economic situation. We continue to listen to businesses and workers about how we can strengthen the program. As part of this bill, we took measures to make the top-up subsidy more adaptable to unexpected changes in revenue.

Rather than using the existing three-month revenue decline test to calculate the top-up subsidy, the base subsidy and top-up subsidy will be determined on the basis of the year-over-year change in the eligible employer's monthly revenue for the current or previous calendar month.

What is more, to ensure these changes do not lead to a less generous wage subsidy, the wage subsidy program would include a safe harbour rule, applicable until December 19. This rule would entitle an eligible employer to a top-up subsidy rate that is no less than it would have received under the three-month revenue decline test.

Taken together, the measures included in Bill C-9 would mean that employers impacted by the pandemic—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the time has expired.

I would like to remind the minister that she needs to wear her headset so that her speech can be interpreted properly.

I encourage all members to do the same.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech. She repeated several times that they listened. The problem is that it took them six months to take action.

Because of rules set out earlier, many businesses had to voluntarily scale back their activities in order to survive.

The Conservative Party proposed changes in May that have just been introduced now, six weeks into the new parliamentary session after the Liberal government prorogued Parliament. That is not exactly the kind of listening we expect from a government that says it is managing a crisis.

On top of that, we just watched all the Liberal members vote against a motion that would give Canadian businesses a little more breathing room and give them a break from CRA audits as they battle for survival.

Why did the minister's colleagues and cabinet, those who claim to be working hard for the prosperity of the middle class, vote against this motion that was all about helping Canadian businesses get through the crisis?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Since the start of the crisis, the government has implemented many programs for businesses, workers and Canadians to help get them through the first wave and then the second. That is why we introduced Bill C-9, whose objective is to present a new program for fixed costs such as rent.

In our discussions with many businesses from across the country and with chambers of commerce, we listened in order to determine how we could support businesses, not-for-profit organizations and, of course, charities. We believe that we have found an approach that will support businesses in the bill we are presenting today.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

Bill C-9 is a good bill, but it does not solve every problem. More specialized sectors such as air transportation and regional airports are going to need more targeted aid. Their losses are in the billions of dollars.

Although there is less air traffic, there is still the financial burden of costs associated with the provision of services such as emergency medical transportation and runway maintenance. In the case of the Mont-Joli airport back home, the losses are substantial. The Gaspé regional airport is running a deficit of $800,000. The government thinks that it is helping air transportation by directly subsidizing the airlines, but that is not going to ensure the survival of airports.

Will the government provide direct financial support to regional airports?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As I mentioned earlier, from the beginning, we implemented many programs to support businesses and various sectors. We wanted to ensure that these programs would apply nationwide.

One such program is the regional relief and recovery fund, and we know that it has supported the efforts of regional development agencies across the country. More than $1.5 billion has been allocated to help affected businesses and communities.

We will obviously continue to monitor changes in the sectors and the economy, and we will continue to support businesses and workers to ensure that we all make it through this crisis.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

A brief question, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we just heard the minister say that she has been listening to small business. For six months we and small businesses have been letting her know that they cannot access the commercial rent assistance program.

The New Democrats support the changes. However, the Liberals have admitted that they have a design flaw in the commercial rent assistance program. The finance minister just said that they could and would do anything to help support small business with an equitable recovery. There is no equity here regarding the fairness of the roll out of the legislation. They need to backdate the program to April 1—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I asked the member for a brief question. We have to allow for the answer.

The hon. minister, a brief answer please because we are going to be running short on time.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance mentioned, we will retroactively bring this new program to September 27. As we know, the CECRA program provided support until September. We knew we needed to have an approach where tenants had direct access. That is why we are proposing an approach today that will support businesses and their fixed costs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fredericton, Seniors; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is the solution for the mess we are in? The answer is that there are 20 million solutions. They are called workers. That is the size of Canada's workforce. We have 20 million men and women who get out of bed every day and go to work to produce the wealth of the nation. That wealth puts food on their tables, finances the roads upon which they and others drive, pays for our schools, hospitals and everything else we do that makes this country as splendid and as wonderful as it is.

Unfortunately, those workers have been deprived of work, many of them sent home because of health ordinances by local officials during the COVID-19 period. As many as eight million had to take assistance from the government in order to replace their lost jobs or, in the case of furlough, their lost income. Because governments deprived them of their income, those workers had every right to expect governments to replace that income. That, however, is not an excuse for the deliberate policy decisions of the government that have penalized workers who attempted to get back into their jobs as the shutdown began to be lifted.

For example, the early CERB program was pulled out of the hands of any worker who regained more than $1,000 of their monthly income. Rather than being graduated slowly to ensure that each dollar earned was beneficial to the worker, the government penalized people for the crime of trying to rebuild their lives.

Then we had the wage subsidy, for which small businesses were punished if they committed the crime of recuperating more than 30% of their lost revenues. They had to be down by that 30% in order to qualify. If they earned $1 more, they would get nothing at all, forcing many businesses to suppress their revenues, legally and necessarily, in order to continue receiving the support necessary to keep them alive. The same went for the rent program for which businesses had to be down 70% in revenue to qualify. It was another penalty imposed on businesses attempting to recover.

On May 2, I wrote an op-ed in the Ottawa Sun in which I proposed practical solutions that would allow workers or businesses to graduate, slowly and one step at a time, from these assistance programs in a way that ensured that they were always better off earning that extra dollar, taking that extra shift or serving that extra customer.

Finally, today we are debating legislation from the government that does those things. Finally, there is legislation that rewards, rather than punishes, workers for working and businesses for earning. That is what we have asked for all along. This was a painful lesson with great cost, and is one of the reasons why Canada has the highest unemployment rate of all G7 countries, save for Italy. Italy is of course the most socialist country in the G7, and the country from which the Liberal government tries its best to take examples. It is funny that the most socialist country has the highest unemployment, and our government is doing its best to compete for the prize of highest jobless rate in the G7 by replicating those same disastrous policies. However, we have the second highest unemployment rate: higher than the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany and Japan. There we are, barely under Italy in the rate of unemployment, as we enter now the seventh or eighth month of the pandemic crisis.

The government has had to learn, slowly and painfully, the cost to the economy of punishing workers and businesses, but this cost is not unique to COVID times. In fact, we in this country suffer from something I call the war on work. The war on work happens when governments punish wage earners by taking away, through clawbacks and taxes, a large share of each extra dollar a person earns.

Take, for example, someone who might be on disability assistance and who gets a job. They not only pay taxes on their earnings but start to lose their disability benefit at a combined rate that can at times exceed 100%. This war on work effectively makes it unaffordable for many workers to take an extra shift.

Even for people who are not on social assistance, this war on work exists. For example, just last week the reporter Jordan Press obtained a finance committee study showing that a single mother earning $55,000 a year could lose as much as 70¢ on every extra dollar she earns. People in the lower income categories suffer a higher level of marginal effective tax rates.

These are penalties people pay for the crime of getting out of bed in the morning and working hard. This is why our party is proposing there be a full review and reform of our tax and benefit systems to ensure people are always better off working, earning another dollar, taking another shift or serving another customer.

The war on work goes beyond the transfer and tax system. It goes to the regulatory system, which has thus far outright killed two pipeline projects because of the Prime Minister's opposition to them. The pipeline projects would have taken western crude to eastern refineries and to Asian markets, and would have created jobs for steel workers in central Canada, trades workers across the country, refinery workers on the east coast and of course energy workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Those jobs are now lost because the government prevented the construction of those very same projects.

It is not just pipelines that were affected. The Prime Minister successfully killed a massive $20-billion mining project in northern Alberta: the Teck Frontier mine, which was supported by all the surrounding indigenous communities. These communities are often the greatest victims of the federal government's war on work. People want to go out and work hard, build their dreams, earn a great living and live a great life, but are prevented from doing so because the government penalizes and blocks projects that create opportunities.

Think of those opportunities and how we could unleash them. I remember being with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo about five weeks ago and meeting with local pipeline workers who are part of the Trans Mountain pipeline project, and how proud they were. The local indigenous communities are putting forward remarkable, great Canadian workers, who brought their skills to the front lines and were earning great wages, and rightly so. That is just one example of what we could multiply in this country if the government got out of the way and allowed more of these projects to go forward.

It is not just energy. It is not just resources. It is the construction of anything in this country. It takes three times as long for a warehouse to get governmental approval in Canada as it does in the United States of America. If a group of investors is in the business of building warehouses to produce a particular product and calculates that the wait time to get approval here is three times as long and far more uncertain, then the investors' money leaves our country to go and build somewhere else.

That is exactly the phenomenon we have witnessed in Canada over the last five years. Hundreds of billions of dollars have left the country. Canadian investment in the U.S. doubled while American investment in Canada fell by half. That is because money goes where it can build and earn a return. If governments prevent construction and returns from occurring, the money will go somewhere else. What it means is the jobs and wealth production happen outside of our country. What do we do to make up the difference? We have to import goods from abroad and borrow from foreigners to pay the difference, thus we witness our economy becoming more and more indebted.

It is not just the government that is now on a massive borrowing binge, but also businesses and households. The combined total of this, if we take households, corporations and governments, is a 380% debt-to-GDP ratio, which is the highest anywhere in the G7, with the exception of Japan.

These debts have, thus far, only been sustainable because of low interest rates, but low interest rates are not a sure thing forever. When those rates rise, our people will be shouldering an unmitigated disaster.

The only thing we can do to avert that disaster is to unleash the power of the free enterprise system to create jobs so that our 20 million workers, whom I identified at the outset of my remarks as the solution to this problem, can earn the salaries necessary to pay their bills and contribute to the governmental coffers so that we can continue to afford the programs and services upon which our people rely.

Today's bill is past due. It would finally remove the penalties on workers that I warned about in early May. Hopefully, it would allow us to reverse the damage that the government did throughout the summer. Hopefully, it would allow our businesses to get back on their feet to hire the necessary workers, to rebuild our workforce and unleash the mighty power of our 20 million great Canadian workers. Let us get to work.

[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]

Madam Speaker, what the member forgets to mention when he talks about unemployment is that 75% of those who had to leave their jobs because of the pandemic have been returned to the workforce, compared with the U.S., which is just over 50%. That is a very important aspect that the member chose not to comment on.

The programs that have been provided to date by this government have been demonstrated to be very effective. All one needs to do is look at those individuals who are back in the workforce that had to leave the workforce because of the pandemic.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we still have higher unemployment in Canada than in the United States of America. It is higher than in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany and Japan. Frankly, only Italy, whose economy has been paralyzed by its debt-ridden socialist policies for more than a decade, is slightly higher than us in unemployment. As I said at the outset, the government is trying to replicate the Italian approach of a permanently larger government funded by deficits. That is exactly how the Italian economy got into such permanent hardship, even well before the crisis.

The member can celebrate that we no longer have the highest unemployment in the G7 because the Italians are slightly ahead of us due to their socialist policies but, for God's sake, are Liberals really going to start pumping their fists in the air and saying, “We're number six, we're number six”?

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

We share the same opinion on the government's tremendous and unprecedented capacity to wait too long before making decisions. I would like my colleague to tell me how many businesses have had to close their doors for good because the government does not make decisions quickly enough and does not immediately consider the proposals submitted by the other parties.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

It is clear that some businesses were unable to survive because of unexpected and unjustifiable delays by a government that could well have taken our suggestions as early as May.

If a small restaurant has to close for three months or sees a drop in revenue during that same period, it will be unable to survive if it cannot access a commercial rent assistance program or if it is penalized by the emergency wage subsidy. Families are losing their life savings and it is precisely family businesses that have disappeared. This is an economic tragedy caused by this government's delays.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about the flawed design of the commercial rent assistance program, and how unfair it was for those who could not apply for the program because their landlords would not support them through the crisis. We have the government members right now patting themselves on the back saying they will backdate it to September 27.

Does my colleague support New Democrats in calling on the government to bring that back, and backdate the support to April 1 for those business owners who could not apply because their landlord would not support them, who are steeped in debt, and many of them facing bankruptcy?

I am sure the member is used to the Liberals not answering a yes-or-no question. Do the Conservatives support New Democrats in asking the government to backdate the program to April 1, yes or no?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we do support backdating the rental assistance to September, and that is why we will be allowing this to pass. That said, this entire mess related to the rent subsidy program is highly suspicious.

The Liberals said that CRA could not administer the rent assistance program and that, therefore, they had to go over to CMHC which does not do commercial real estate and is responsible for mortgage insurance. CMHC officials said they could do it either, and that they had to contract this out to a company whose vice-president is married to the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Now, the Liberals admit that they could have just given this to CRA all along and that there was nothing stopping them from having CRA do it.

The only reason we can assume that the Liberals ever punted this over to an outside company is that their Liberal friends and family members were intimately involved in its original delivery. It is quite a sad thing that so many businesses suffered for so long because the government put as its priority the helping of insider Liberals rather than small business owners and workers.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in her comments earlier, seemed to take comfort in the fact that interest rates were so low. My colleague commented on interest rates as well. Could he further expand on the catastrophic effect a rise in interest rates will have, at some point in the future, on the fiscal position of the Government of Canada?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really quite simple. When the debt-to-GDP ratio is somewhere around 400%, where we have $4 of debt, public and private combined, for every dollar of GDP, they could assume that a 1% increase in the effective interest rate on our economy would be equal to 4% of our economy. Given that the economy only grows by 1.5% a year, that is like two and a half years of growth. It is an enormous impact. The Liberals say that is okay because the interest rates are low, but they never tell us what is going to happen when interest rates finally go up.

They also never tell us that the only reason interest rates are low is because the Bank of Canada is printing hundreds of billions of dollars in order to buy up government debt and suppress interest rates. It is not because the market has deemed that rates should be low; it is because the Bank of Canada has cranked up its printing presses. This is not a new idea. This has been tried by emperors and kings and governments for thousands of years and results always in the same consequence.

We know what happens when we debase a currency. It ends up costing the working people, by reducing the value of their wages, while enriching the insiders whose assets are appreciated in value. There is a massive wealth transfer from working poor to the super rich, and here we have a government in collaboration with the Bank of Canada, doing it all over again.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of unemployment. Maybe I was right, which I was, when I made the statement that we have a much higher return rate than the United States: 75% versus 50%. The member then went back and said we have such a high unemployment rate.

Prior to the pandemic, we had the lowest unemployment rate, historically in Canada, since unemployment stats were being taken. If we compare it to Stephen Harper's government, the rate now is considerably less, where we generated over a million jobs in less than four years.

I wonder if the member wants to provide a further comment in terms of how successful we were in working with Canadians and generating those jobs, and not only with the support of Canadians going into the pandemic, but we were able to return more Canadians back to work because of the programming that was put into place.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the low levels of unemployment across the OECD in the pre-pandemic period are entirely the result of a large share of the workforce retiring, and therefore the unemployment rate dropped everywhere. Across the OECD almost every country in the world had record low unemployment up until the COVID crisis. Before the COVID crisis, Canada's unemployment was still higher than the U.S., the U.K., Japan and Germany. It was higher than those countries and only lower than socialist France and Italy, and it has worsened, moving behind Italy since that time, so now we only have Italy with higher unemployment than Canada in the G7.

So, the member finally says that we have recovered a larger share of our lost jobs than the Americans, but that is because we had a higher unemployment rate than the Americans going into the crisis. If a nation has a weak job market and a weak economy going into a crisis, obviously it is going to be weaker throughout that crisis, and we are seeing that happen now.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to share my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will ask for only those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement. Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

Unanimous consent has been given.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 would extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy until next summer and provide real commercial rent support. The Bloc Québécois has been pressing for both of these measures for some time, so I am glad I can finally congratulate the government on introducing them. That is why the Bloc supports this bill and would like to see it passed quickly, as set out in the motion moved earlier.

The most important economic factor for businesses is predictability. In the spring and summer, I repeatedly asked Mr. Morneau to make an effort to announce his intentions for a longer period of time. Businesses have tough choices to make and cannot make the best decisions when they do not know how long measures like the CERB and the wage subsidy are going to last. We know this because we were getting calls and having conversations with entrepreneurs in our ridings. Unfortunately, every measure was announced and extended at the last minute for a month at a time. It was month to month. Businesses were complaining.

Bill C-9 will fix the problem for the wage subsidy. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on being so responsive. It makes a big difference.

The same is true for commercial rent support.

The previous program, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, was a joke. It was very poorly designed, too restrictive and did not provide enough assistance, not to mention that landlords could simply say no. That program did not cover SMEs that own their premises. It was not working, and money was not getting out the door. The government had planned to invest $3 billion in the program, but barely $1.3 billion was spent. That is not even half of what was intended. It was a dismal but predictable failure. The program was designed in such a way that it was not used to cover needs, which were unfortunately very real.

The new rent subsidy is much better designed. The participation of commercial landlords is no longer required. Support is more accessible and more flexible, so it is better adapted to the various situations that SMEs might be up against. Six months after promising it, the government is finally coming through with a program to support businesses and their fixed costs, something the Bloc Québécois was calling for.

I would like to give a brief chronology of events.

On April 11, 2020, after the Bloc Québécois threatened to stop co-operating with the government, it promised to bring in programs to cover the fixed costs of SMEs hit hard by the pandemic.

Two weeks later, on April 29, the government announced the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, which was implemented in May. As I said, that program was an absolute joke. It did not really cover the fixed costs for SMEs. The commercial rent assistance program ended in September, as did the wage subsidy.

It took until October 9 for the government to finally announce that it was brining in a program to cover the fixed costs of businesses hard hit by the crisis. That includes rent, mortgages, insurance, and property tax. The government also announced it was extending the wage subsidy.

Nearly a month later, on November 2, the government introduced Bill C-9, and on November 4, we finally started debating it. It was about time, so thank goodness we did. That does not change the fact that the SMEs needed better measures to cover their fixed costs in the spring and summer, but better late than never.

Currently, nine out of 10 Quebeckers live in a red zone. SMEs throughout Quebec need help covering their costs. We applaud the generosity of Bill C-9 for businesses, especially those in a red zone. Bill C-9 is good news. It is well suited to the commercial sector, but it does not solve everything.

A number of sectors have been hit very hard by the crisis and need targeted programs. I am thinking in particular about air transportation, including airports; aerospace; inter-regional transportation; hotel complexes in urban areas; the cultural and entertainment sector, including festivals; summer camps, sugar shacks and reception halls, which lost their entire 2020 season and are on the brink of bankruptcy. This is no joke.

The Bloc Québécois is starting to lose patience and is reiterating its demands to the government. We support Bill C-9, but we want sectoral programs. Time is of the essence. For example, we must absolutely support the aerospace industry. The situation is critical, and Quebec cannot lose this industry.

Providing hundreds of millions of dollars to Ontario's auto industry while snubbing the aerospace industry is an unbelievable injustice for this sector and Quebec's economy. That is just wrong.

There is an aspect of Bill C-9 that is more than problematic. In my opinion, it does not address a deep injustice. As drafted, it seems that Bill C-9 maintains the eligibility of political parties for the wage subsidy and also provides them with rent support. Do our constituents agree with this? Must Quebec and Canadian taxpayers pay to support rich political parties like the Liberal Party through their taxes and collective debt? I think not.

So far this year the Liberal Party has raised more than $8 million. It received at least $800,000 through the wage subsidy. Is it going to keep applying for the wage subsidy until next summer? Will it apply for the rent subsidy or will it pay it back? If yes, when?

What about my Conservative friends? So far this year the party has collected $13 million. Have they paid back the wage subsidy as their leader promised? This deserves a clear answer. Will they put a stop to this serious ethical breach of applying for the wage subsidy, which is funded by taxes and taxpayers' debt?

For the Bloc Québécois, it was clear from the start. It is not up to taxpayers to fund our parties through the wage or rent subsidies. That is unacceptable. Can the Liberals say as much? Is this millionaire party able to take its hands out of the cookie jar for once?

Bill C-9 is a good bill and it should be passed quickly. Our SMEs are struggling and time is of the essence. The government also needs to hurry up and put measures in place for targeted sectors, such as the aerospace industry.

Can the Liberal Party stop scheming about how to get rich at the expense of citizens? Can it stop applying for the wage subsidy, pay that money back and not apply for the rent subsidy?

We are in the midst of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is time to help people and support the economy, not time to step up to the trough while doing so. I am asking the Liberal Party to raise its ethical standards by committing to act in an exemplary manner, serve the public and stop serving itself through its own programs. Enough with the gluttony.

[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]

Madam Speaker, these programs, whether it is the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy, were developed and brought forward to help all Canadians and to help small businesses in particular. The legislation before us is as simple as that.

What we are debating today clearly demonstrates the government has recognized that, even though this new program was developed in the last eight months, there is a need to make modifications. Some of those modifications will be retroactive in order to, once again, protect businesses.

Does the member not agree that it is a good thing that virtually from the creation of the program only eight months ago, we have been able to successfully make modifications that will continue to support small businesses and the people of Canada?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree. When the pandemic hit, we told the government that a wage subsidy would be a good thing. Denmark and other countries had it, so why not follow suit? We were pleased when it was implemented. The program is working well.

We repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance to extend the subsidy for a longer period of time. Businesses have been telling us that they do not know where they stand because they do not know if the subsidy is going to be extended or not. That makes it hard for them to make decisions.

We are pleased with the measures introduced today, and we support them. We want this bill to be passed faster than usual.

However, I think it is unacceptable that the Liberal Party, which has raised $8 million so far this year, is using the wage subsidy to pay itself. The Liberal Party must pledge to stop using subsidies and repay the money it has received.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

We know that the first version of the rent relief program for SMEs was poorly designed, since the vast majority of SMEs could not even access it. Following pressure from us as well as SMEs, a new version is now being proposed.

Does the member agree with the NDP that this assistance should be retroactive to well before September 27? We think all businesses that could not access the first version because it was so poorly designed should be able to access the new version retroactively so they can continue to operate, contribute to their communities and provide employment opportunities.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his question.

I agree that the rent relief program was not working. The federal finance minister said that it was a provincial jurisdiction, but Quebec's finance minister, Mr. Girard, said that the way the program was formulated meant it was not a provincial jurisdiction and that it had been designed that way by the federal government.

We knew all along that it would not work. We got calls from many small businesses saying they were not eligible for the rent relief. Some business owners told us that they owned their premises but were not eligible for rent relief because they had a mortgage. Others said that their landlord did not want to apply. It was not working.

The program being proposed today is much better. It is retroactive to September 27. Should it be retroactive to the beginning of the crisis? That is an interesting question and I raised it with the government, but it does not seem open to that idea. It is looking ahead, because all of these programs are expensive. However, this is certainly something that we should study carefully, since many businesses are facing bankruptcy because their fixed costs were not covered during the summer.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has always been proactive in proposing solutions for SMEs. Incidentally, we want to thank the economic partners in our ridings, such as the Haut-Saint-Laurent RCM, the Beauharnois-Salaberry RCM and CLD, the Vaudreuil-Soulanges RCM and the Suroît-Sud CFDC.

Can my colleague explain the impact on these organizations? The time lag between the announcement of a program and its implementation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Joliette for a brief answer.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for the question.

Our job is to be a liaison between all these organizations on the ground that represent SMEs and the government. We repeat what we hear and propose what might work.

On April 11, we asked that fixed costs be covered. However, this measure will be retroactive only to September 27. The time lag between our request and the announcement is a bit too long.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebec recently announced that businesses in the red zone will remain closed until November 23.

As we enter the second month of the second wave, entire sectors of Quebec's economy are still waiting for adequate assistance from Ottawa.

With many businesses closer to bankruptcy than ever before, our business owners are emphasizing that the simplest, most effective and most transparent solution, both for them and for the government, would be to implement a program to help offset fixed costs.

Could we start discussing this and addressing the real needs of business owners, who are the backbone of our economy?

That is the take-away from the September 30 survey of 1,700 SMEs conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It also shows that 50% of Quebec businesses, or one in two, believe they would not easily survive a second wave of restrictions.

This same survey showed that 27% of SMEs will survive less than a year with the revenue they are currently taking in. Quebec's SMEs are saying that they need an average of $25,000 to cover their fixed costs until December 2020. That is huge. The numbers speak for themselves. We need to act. We need to act intelligently and quickly, because our economic vitality is precisely what will help us pay down some of the debt we are currently accumulating. The future of our SMEs is at stake.

With Bill C-9, the government decided to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy until the summer of 2021. That is a very good thing. When a federal measure or program is worth mentioning, the Bloc Québécois is not afraid to say it.

It is all well and good to extend the program until June 2021, but what will the parameters be as of January 2021? We know what they are until December 31, 2020, but we do not know what they will be from January to June. We do not know anything, even though, as my colleague from Joliette said, predictability is essential for our entrepreneurs.

I would also like to remind the Liberals that the wage subsidy is for businesses and organizations, not political parties. I will also remind the Conservatives of that. Quebeckers are still waiting for the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to pay back the subsidy, which they used for political purposes. That is shameful.

I will get back to the subject of Quebec SMEs. Quebec has nearly 250,000 small and medium businesses that account for 93% of private-sector jobs, or 2.3 million workers who will contribute to rebuilding Quebec's economy and their families' quality of life. Would the government risk cutting that in half? SMEs are vital to Quebec's economy.

We know that the Government of Canada missed its opportunity to help our SMEs pay their rent during the first wave with the program that ended on September 30. Yes, the proposed wage subsidy in Bill C-9 is a good program, and the commercial rent subsidy is much better now, but it is not enough. When will the government come to the House with a substantive program that will actually help Quebec SMEs with their fixed costs?

Quebec has already taken steps to help SMEs with their fixed costs. Establishments in red zones are entitled to a refund of the bulk of their fixed costs for a maximum of $15,000 for the month of October. Eligible costs include commercial rent, municipal and school taxes, interest on mortgages, utilities, insurance, telecommunications, permits, and association dues. Some 13,000 businesses are eligible to receive this help. Why did Canada not offer such effective help for fixed costs for our SMEs in Quebec?

The first version of the commercial rent assistance program was a failure. Whether a business survived or failed was in the landlord's hands because they could refuse to participate in the program and let the renters head for bankruptcy. Obviously we all got phone calls about this in our respective ridings.

In Bill C-9, with the new proposed version of the Canada emergency rent subsidy, the financial assistance will be offered directly to the renter. That is essential. It is also simpler.

However, it is terrible to see that it took the Liberals seven months to understand that this is what needed to be done. It was a waste of time, an unnecessary stress for people, the landlords and renters. It created conflict.

The proposed new version of the emergency commercial rent assistance seems a bit more flexible and open. That is an improvement, because some assistance was added to help businesses that own their buildings cover fixed costs like insurance, property taxes and mortgage interest.

Why not go further, though?

Bill C-9 does not reflect reality. It does not acknowledge that sectors are diverse and that businesses in our regions, such as hotels, cultural businesses and organizations, and even summer camps, have specific realities.

Tourism and cultural industries in Quebec are a crucial part of our regions and our culture. Tourism and cultural businesses have not been doing well for months now. These businesses do the majority of their business during the summer, but they posted huge revenue losses this year. Quebec's tourism and cultural industry experienced a drastic 60% drop in sales and a loss of $3.4 billion in revenue, not to mention the countless businesses that were shut down.

Fixed costs represent 25% of expenses in the tourism industry. Could we look at creating a fixed-cost tax credit, on top of the commercial rent assistance program for small businesses in general, to give them a chance to get back on their feet during the next normal tourism season?

Fixed costs, once again, are commercial rent, municipal and school taxes, mortgage interest, electricity and gas bills, insurance, telecommunications costs, permits and association fees. At least, those are the fixed costs Quebec recognizes. Canada will need to do the same.

In our various interventions over the past few months, the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly insisted—and we continue to insist—on the importance of the recovery, which must of course be a green recovery and take the environment into account. We need to think about the future, and I mean beyond the next election.

One thing that really concerns me is the development of our regions. Recognized for their vitality on so many levels, our regions contribute massively to the natural and intellectual wealth of our urban centres. Their creative strength and innovative spirit open the door to new and effective avenues for community development.

I must insist on the need to stop pondering the idea of a regional development and recovery fund geared toward processing natural resources where they are found. A territorial innovation support program by and for the regions would also be welcome.

The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that any existing and future programs must be flexible and that we must be able to adapt the way they are administered to the regions' different realities. That is key. As we have seen with the issue of immigration, a one-size-fits-all approach too often does not work for the regions.

Because we want to establish a vision for the future and because our organizations and SMEs make an important contribution to the recovery, it seems clear to me that the CFDCs, for example, are well placed to help the various local and regional entities. This will help address the real needs of our communities and identify the priorities for recovery and the target industries.

The regional relief and recovery fund responded to the need for support that existed before the program was put in place and to the need to quickly get the funding out to our businesses. I would like to point out that this was a success in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

What is more, the communities themselves are in the best position to target the appropriate innovation zones for their area. Since the pandemic began and even before, it is the communities themselves and their residents who have identified the most pressing needs and the business development opportunities.

Simply put, Quebec and its regions know what is best for Quebec. In conclusion, six months after making that promise, the Government of Canada has finally come up with the fixed cost support program the Bloc Québécois pushed for. That is why, even though the program is not perfect, the Bloc Québécois and I would like to see Bill C-9 passed quickly.

[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]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues, of course, is working with different levels of government. In the province of Manitoba, the provincial government has decided to get more engaged in terms of helping small businesses. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts regarding the role that different levels of government also have in terms of supporting small businesses in our many different communities.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question.

As an MP, I observed something troubling during the first six months of the pandemic. I did not realize that there was excellent collaboration among various levels of government despite what we were hearing during question period. For one thing, I did not get the impression that there was any dialogue happening with the Government of Quebec. I especially did not get the impression that there was any support for our SMEs, including support for fixed costs and rent.

I sincerely hope that Bill C-9 will be passed quickly so the money can get out the door and into people's bank accounts fast. I encourage the federal government to sit down with the provinces and be as generous as possible with our SMEs, which make up the economic fabric of Quebec and its regions.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, too many businesses in my riding are being excluded from the emergency business account, the CEBA, because contracts after March 1 are not included in the $40,000 expenses required to access the loan. One constituent recently pointed out to me that many businesses did not begin feeling the effects of COVID-19 until well after March 1. In fact, the Liberal government did not even create a committee to begin studying the possible effects of COVID-19 until March 4, 2020. Business owners in my constituency and across Canada who have sacrificed so much during COVID-19 should be supported by their government. There are others across this country in similar situations.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would agree with me that we need a change in the CEBA eligibility to allow expenses beyond the current March 1, 2020, deadline to help these small businesses who are struggling so hard.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his question and his concern.

At the beginning of the pandemic and long before the Canada emergency business account and RRRF program were brought in, I had a conversation with the Minister of Economic Development about the need to take care of small business owners, those who pay themselves in dividends, partnerships and very small businesses. Many farmers are in that situation. I was concerned about all the gaps.

The RRRF program addressed some of my concerns, but there is room for improvement. Like the emergency account, Bill C-9 and many other things, the devil is in the details. When programs are implemented, from here, in theory, it might look like everything is working well. However, in the regions, and small regions in particular, those programs are often ill suited to the reality. I therefore urge the government to be flexible to ensure that a maximum number of Quebec and Canadian businesses can survive this pandemic.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sincere efforts and for protecting his region.

With the measures we must implement to support our SMEs, we must consider the cultural sector, which includes the performing arts, the living arts, all the performances that will be put on who knows when. Theatres may perhaps reopen one year from now. Will there be any dance companies and music groups left?

What should the Liberal government do to help our culture survive until these arts can take to the stage again?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent question.

I have something to confess. I am lucky enough to be living in a yellow zone. The Abitibi-Témiscamingue International Film Festival was able to hold its premiere screening in Rouyn-Noranda during this pandemic. Of course, very strict special measures were in place. However, as I was present that day, I can confirm just how important culture is. It is good for mental health and good for the soul to be able to attend such an occasion. It is vital that we invest in our creations and in our creators. This is part of the social fabric and part of what makes us happy to be Quebeckers.

I call on the government to be compassionate and generous towards our creators. The future of Quebec's culture is at stake.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the wonderful member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's request to share his time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni to express their disagreement.

Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving this motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. As there are no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to members for allowing that shift in time. Of course, the member for Courtenay—Alberni has been integral to this legislation being brought forward, which helps to correct so many of the errors that were in the first version of commercial rent relief.

I would like to shout out, as I do when I'm talking about small and medium-sized businesses, to the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce, of which I have been a member for a long time, and the Burnaby Board of Trade, of which I have also been a member for many years. Both of which provide good spokespeople for the small businesses in the communities I represent in New Westminster—Burnaby.

I would like to start by talking about how the NDP and the member for Burnaby South, our national leader, saw the urgency, when the pandemic hit, for the federal government to put in place important programs so that people would have the wherewithal to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads and, when running a small business, to make sure that business continued to generate jobs in the community. From the very outset, we pushed for programs that would actually be put into place and support people right across the country.

The member for Burnaby South said at the outset that we needed to have in place an emergency benefit that would go to everybody in the country. The Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said that was the best approach. It would have cost less than what the government in the end, with NDP pressure, actually did, and it would have covered more people.

The government at the beginning was trying to rely on a very antiquated employment insurance program that simply did not work for most people who lost their employment. The old EI simply was not available to them. The government relying on that and putting in place a 10% wage subsidy was simply inadequate, so the NDP started its work. We pressed for a 75% wage subsidy because we knew that would help maintain jobs and that other countries had put in place a similar program. We pressed for an emergency response benefit that went to everybody. We were able to obtain substantial benefits going to people right across the country, and we pressed for renewal and pressed for renewal again. There are millions of Canadians, as a result of those efforts, who have access to an emergency benefit.

We pressed as well to make sure that seniors got an emergency benefit and forced through the House of Commons a unanimous motion to that effect. We also pushed for students to be covered. Initially, the government was very hostile to that. We pushed, prodded and fought. Ultimately, a student emergency benefit was put into place.

We fought as well for students who have disabilities or have dependents to get the same level of support that the emergency benefit provided to people who were out of work, and we succeeded in the fight to get that student CERB in place. We pressed for suspension of student loans.

We pressed for sick leave. Ultimately, as colleagues know, the member for Burnaby South was determined in this regard and we finally obtained universal sick leave, for the first time since the founding of our country, that applies to workers. Workers no longer have to have that desperate choice between doing the right thing and staying home, and putting food on the table for their families. That universal sick leave is, at the moment, only available for one year, but it represents significant progress for so many people who would, otherwise, be forced to go to work sick or simply not be able to feed their family.

Two areas where we fought are of particular concern because of the government's weak response and almost passive-aggressive push-back. On the one hand, it is people with disabilities who, from the very beginning, were forced to undertake additional expenses through this tragic pandemic, struggling as well to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. People with disabilities were completely ignored by the government and that contrasts vividly with the massive bailout given to our banking system. Finally, after seven months of pushing, fighting and forcing the government, an emergency benefit is going out, not to all people with disabilities but all people registered in the federal system.

All of these fights to get benefits for regular people, which the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus have been engaged in, contrast vividly with what the government actually did for big banks and big corporations. Within four days, the government moved to provide liquidity supports of $750 billion, that is three-quarters of $1 trillion, to Canada's big banks. These banks have, so far in this pandemic, reaped windfall profits of $15 billion.

We know that in the next quarterly reports those staggering amounts will go up even more significantly because of all of the deferred mortgage penalties and interest charges that now are coming due. While small businesses are struggling, while people are struggling, the banking sector has reaped enormous largesse from the federal government. That is a program of the government, and it is one of only two programs that the government originated by itself, of its own efforts, without anybody pressing it to do it.

The other, of course, is the LEEFF program. As we saw initially at the beginning of this year, this was $1 billion in forgivable loans to large Canadian corporations, with no transparency and no information being shared with the public. New Democrats do not believe that was the best approach to take. We believe in transparency. We believe that Canadians need to know where their tax dollars are going.

This brings me to the issue of small business. From the very beginning, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus pushed for small business loans to be made available through the CEBA. We pushed for that wage subsidy of 75%, which many other countries found to be particularly important, and for commercial rent relief for small businesses. The first version that was put in place over the summer was put in place in such a haphazard and irresponsible way that it did not benefit most of the people who could have benefited from it within small businesses.

The contract, as we know, was given without any tendering to a company that employs as one of its principals the spouse of the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. Initially the program was designed only for those who have commercial mortgages. The contract was given to a commercial mortgage company and it decided that anyone who had a commercial mortgage could access the program. The reality is that there was over $1 billion that small businesses desperate to stay in business were unable to access.

Now, finally, because of the pushing and prodding of the NDP, we have a bill that is more in keeping with what we have been saying, from the very beginning, needed to happen for small businesses. However, the government and the official opposition are refusing to make it retroactive to April 1, even though there are so many thousands of businesses that have been unable to access the initial program.

The New Democratic Party will be bringing forward an amendment, and we are asking Liberal and Conservative MPs to vote for it. We are asking people right across the country, if they are in the small business sector and believe, as we do, that the small business sector and community businesses need to have the chance to grow, get through this pandemic and continue to contribute to jobs in the community, then they should tell their local Liberal or Conservative MPs to vote for the NDP amendment on Friday.

New Democrats will be putting forward the amendment so that small businesses that did not access the original landlord-driven, commercial mortgage-driven program will have access to the new program retroactively prior to September 27, right back to April 1. That is the amendment we intend to bring forward.

New Democrats believe in small businesses. We believe that they are often the backbone of the community economy. We believe that social enterprises, community businesses and co-operatives working together often provide jobs and great economic benefit. That is why we are bringing forward this amendment. We hope that Canadians will react favourably to it and call or write their Liberal or Conservative MPs to tell them to vote yes on the NDP amendment, to make it retroactive prior to September 27, so that businesses can access the funding they should have had in the summer.

[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]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the NDP doing this and the NDP doing that. It takes away from the reality that there were many organizations and individuals that contributed to the necessary dialogue in order to make many of the changes required for a wide spectrum of programs that were introduced. I could cite numerous discussions among my Liberal colleagues in which we brought up ideas and thoughts that would improve upon these programs.

Has the NDP costed out in any fashion its proposed amendment? Does it have any sense of what that would be?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course the government was receiving pressure from business organizations and people with disabilities.

I think it is important that we, as members of Parliament, report back to our constituents and to the country about what we have been fighting for through this pandemic. The issues we have raised are actually issues that have made a difference in people's lives.

I fail to see how the $750 billion that the Liberals handed out through a variety of federal government institutions to the banking sector is making a real difference in people's lives right across the country. I fail to see that.

The government left over $1 billion, about $1.2 billion, on the table that was supposed to go to small businesses. It failed because of the complexity and the incomprehensible approach the government took on commercial rent relief. Let us put that $1.2 billion into retroactive support for small businesses that could not access the program throughout the course of summer because of how the government structured it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have seen $750 billion in liquidity supports and regulatory easing for Bay Street and the big banks, and $81 billion in CERB. Now, here we are, talking about small business.

They want to act as if they are hearing it for the first time. Could the hon. member tell us if he was consulted as the critic for finance when the Liberal government put $750 billion of our taxpayer dollars out to the banks, so they could lend it back to us with interest?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre is one of a number of key members of Parliament who have been standing up for regular Canadians throughout the course of this pandemic, and he has been doing a very strong, eloquent job standing up for regular people. They cannot be forgotten.

The member asks a very important question. As members know, I asked this very specific question at the finance committee to the former finance minister, and there was no answer. I asked the question to finance ministry officials, and there was no answer. I finally had to ask the question to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Within a few days, they gave us an accounting of the $750 billion of liquidity supports that the government had granted within days of the pandemic hitting.

However, people with disabilities had to wait over seven months to get a $600 stipend to try to get them through the pandemic. To know that the government acted with such alacrity for the wealthiest and the most privileged among us, yet were holding off and denying people with disabilities the amounts they so desperately needed to weather this pandemic, should be a source of shame to any government member.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour and privilege to rise today on behalf of New Democrats and small businesses. Today is bittersweet. We have a bill coming forward, finally, with the changes that we, along with small businesses, chambers of commerce, business organizations and labour, have been asking for to get the support to businesses that they desperately need. The government shows it is listening to the changes we are asking for. However, there is not a lot of clarity about moving forward.

We are asking the Liberals, now that they have admitted they failed in the design of their programs, to fix them, not just to fix them moving forward but to make them retroactive. We just heard the finance minister and the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity talk about how they will do anything and everything to help people. They will support an equitable recovery and they are willing to backdate the commercial rent assistance program to September 27. The pandemic did not start on September 27. In fact, we know the previous program was dated for April 1. We do not understand why they would not backdate it to April 1 to make sure it is fair to everybody across this country.

Every day we hear of another business closing its doors permanently. Many could not access the commercial rent assistance program in the first place because their landlord would not apply, even though their neighbour's landlord applied and got access to it. One in three businesses had a landlord that was willing to go to bat and apply for the program. The other two-thirds did not have the same support and were left hanging out to dry. As we know, many are closing their doors as a result of this failed design of a program.

Lisa Bernard Christensen in my riding wrote that it is “too little, too late. I needed it 3 or 4 months ago, now the damage is done.” There are people like Lisa right across the country who want to see this program backdated because they are steeped in debt or facing bankruptcy. This is about being equitable. The government talked about an equitable recovery. In all fairness, I do not know how the Liberals can justify not backdating it, when they admit the program was flawed and broken and they are coming forward today with the fix.

We know we are going to have a huge deficit to pay for this global pandemic we are all enduring. In all fairness, it is going to be on the shoulders of everyday Canadians to pay this deficit back. It should really be on those who profited the most, the superwealthy, those who can afford to chip in and help us get through this and who are going to benefit in the long run.

Likely, most of this will be left on the backs of everyday Canadians, our children, our grandchildren and even our great-grandchildren. It is not fair. If all Canadians are going to share the responsibility of paying these very important emergency funds back, those who were left out are also going to be responsible for paying them back and they are not getting access to them.

We will be putting forward an amendment calling on the government, and the Conservatives, who have not indicated their support, to backdate that program to April 1. We urge all parties to collectively come together and save many people from bankruptcy, many who are steeped in debt and need help to get back on track.

We have seen the government continually delay the rollout of these programs. They could have tabled this legislation in the summer, but they chose to prorogue Parliament. They made announcements that they were going to deliver a bill in early October, but here we are in November. They are delivering a bill and we are going to have to fast-track it through Parliament so that people can get the help they need. We do not even know when Canadians are going to be able to apply for the benefits from this new program. We do not know what the wage subsidy is going to look like in January, February and March.

As a tourism critic and as the member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni, which is a highly visited tourist destination, I know how important it is to have certainty and to know what it looks like. Otherwise, we are going to see more layoffs and more people not knowing if they are going to have a job moving forward. We need the government to take a look at moving forward, come up with a proper recovery plan and identify what the extension of the wage subsidy will look like.

We need to also ensure that the government fixes its broken finance programs. Many businesses are facing liquidity issues, especially hotels and those in the tourism industry. Right now, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada says that only 12% of tourism applicants so far have been able to get access to the BCAP. Forty-three per cent have been outright denied. The government needs to fix these programs. Also, the LEEFF program needs to be fixed. Only two applicants have been approved.

We have so much work ahead of us and we need the government to act urgently. It keeps coming in with these programs after the fact. Here we are, again, talking about legislation to help people with rent that is dated back to September 27. That is not good enough. Rent was due on November 1, and that was missed. The way it is going, we will miss December 1 in supporting these businesses on these important fixed costs. We are now in the second wave. Are we going to get support in the third wave? Again, we do not know what that will look like.

We are hearing from indigenous businesses. They have not been included in the discussions for a lot of the rollout. On the wage subsidy, indigenous-led corporations were left out. We fought tooth and nail so they could get included in the wage subsidy program. The Indigenous Tourism Association represents many indigenous-led tourism operators across the country, and they are the most vulnerable tourism businesses. It took months to get the support needed to save many businesses. These businesses are looking forward. They need support now and some certainty. They have not had a lot of dialogue with the government on these programs to allow them to offer their opinions. The design of many of the programs is flawed and does not serve their needs. The government needs to reach out to these important stakeholders.

We are also learning that a lot of employees in the tourism sector, for example, do not have certainty around their jobs. Nothing in this rollout would protect hospitality and tourism workers by having conditional sectoral support on establishing the right of first refusal for laid-off workers. Laid-off workers have no guarantees from their employers that their jobs will be restored or even offered when the pandemic subsides. We want to ensure these workers, who have given years of their lives to their workplaces, are given the first right of refusal, protecting them from further restructuring or being replaced by workers at a lower wage. We want to ensure the pandemic is not an opportunity for companies to restructure and cut labour costs.

We welcome these important changes, but we want to ensure the government goes even further, that it backs up its statement on ensuring it is an equitable recovery. We need the government to backdate the commercial rent assistance program to April 1 to ensure that all those businesses that have been left out get access to those programs. Again, more and more businesses are going out of business, racking up debt or facing bankruptcy. The government needs to come to their rescue.

The government has left $1.2 billion on the table from the previous commercial rent assistance program. It only spent $1.9 billion of the allotted funds. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 128,000 businesses did get support from that program, but 400,000 businesses would have qualified had the government made it a tenant-driven program.

Another flaw in the previous program was that businesses which rented from a local government or government agency were immediately disqualified from applying for the program. I think of All Mex'd Up, a local taco shop in Port Alberni. It rents space at the Harbour Quay from the City of Port Alberni. It has been excluded. Now the government says that it will make it retroactive to September 27. It is too bad for those restaurants that closed their doors for public health and to protect everybody during April, May and June. The government is not going to help them for all those months.

I am urging the government to support us, backdate that program and support small business.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I am intrigued by the fact that the NDP will be moving an amendment.

Is it the NDP's official position that any small business in the country that had a rental contract would be entitled to receive compensation from a program that would be developed by the NDP? Would every small business be eligible to receive it?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and it is rare I get to say that to the other side.

This program was flawed in the beginning. We wanted to see it scaled with the wage subsidy. In fact, we have been asking for that. People who have lost 50% or 60% of their business did not qualify under the previous program, even if their landlord was on board. They did not meet the criteria because the threshold was 70%. Clearly, they needed help and should have qualified. Therefore, we are glad the government has changed that.

Under even the old rules, they should at least backdate it to April 1 for any tenant who was eligible under the previous rules. At a bare minimum, that should be the requirement. Businesses should be allowed to apply and get the same supports that their neighbours received. Businesses that had their landlords on board applied. Of that money, 50% was federal and provincial money. The government should let them have access to that money. The loss of those businesses and the bankruptcies will far outweigh the cost to fix this.

I hope the government is listening and does the right thing.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has bragged about all the consultations and feedback it has had from small business communities, yet we are in November, finally rolling out this program.

I will share this with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni. In my community there is a BIA, a small business on Locke Street. Last year that street was under construction, so its year-to-dates are way out of whack. It took losses last year that could never be reflected adequately this year. It has been left out of this program and it is on the precipice.

With the member for Courtenay—Alberni's experience as a critic for small business and fighting for small businesses, he talks about applying it to ensure nobody is left behind. Could he take a little more time and talk about all the businesses that continue to be left behind by the Liberal government?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Hamilton Centre is fighting so hard for the small businesses in his riding. I could not even think about how long it would take for me to talk about the number of small businesses that are bringing this to my attention, in my riding alone and in every riding in the country.

A number of businesses we have lost because the government has not fixed this program. However, many can still be saved. Many can stave off bankruptcy if the government does the right thing and backdates its program to April 1. It needs to do this in all fairness to those that have been left behind.

If the Liberals were truly listening to small business and their local chambers of commerce, they would know that it is unfair that some received support and others did not. The business that did not get it, if they are still going to this day, are paying a heavy price, and it is not fair to them.

Let us help them get through it. Let us get the support they need and do the right thing. We can all work together. They are expecting us to work together at a time like this, not to force an election when they are waiting for support, which is what the Liberals were considering doing two weeks ago. That would have meant months and months before businesses saw the help they needed. The government needs to move this quickly and it needs to adjust the bill and backdate it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Laurent, I want to let her know that she will not have time to give her whole speech.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk about the government's plan regarding our support for businesses and the economic recovery in response to COVID-19.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has been pursuing two goals, namely to protect Canadians' lives and to protect and safeguard businesses, jobs and the Canadian economy.

In the face of economic uncertainty, our government took decisive action to support businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and to help protect the jobs that Canadians depend on.

Although some sectors of the economy are recovering, others are still dealing with lower revenues, increased costs and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many business owners and businesses in Canada still need help with cash flow and operating costs. That is why our government introduced an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding the Canada emergency rent subsidy and Canada emergency wage subsidy.

Bill C-9 would implement new targeted supports to help hard-hit businesses. These measures are designed to help businesses get through the second wave of this virus so they can protect jobs, continue to serve their communities and be positioned for a strong recovery.

From very early on in the first wave of the pandemic, it was overwhelmingly clear that one of the most important ways to help businesses survive these trying times was through rental supports. Many Canadian businesses either had to shut down for months on end or lost a significant percentage of their revenues, yet still had to pay rent to their landlords.

This is why our government quickly developed the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, or CECRA, to help businesses with rent so they could stay afloat during the pandemic. One of the problems with this program was that it required landlords to apply for assistance, rather than the businesses themselves.

Businesses reached out to me when this program was announced to let me know that, while they needed the rental support to make it through, their landlords refused to apply for the program and they were being forced to pay the full amount even when in some cases their revenues were non-existent. As much as I try my absolute best to help my constituents and the businesses in my riding that reach out to me to access programs, I had no idea what to tell these people who were at the mercy of their landlords.

What I did was raise these concerns at caucus, as did several of my colleagues, and I am extremely happy our comments were listened to. Through the new and improved version of CECRA, the Canada emergency rent subsidy, we are proposing to provide direct and easy-to-access commercial rent and mortgage support until June of 2021 to organizations and businesses that have been affected by COVID-19, with a subsidy of up to 65%.

The new rent subsidy builds on the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, designed for small businesses. This program has already supported more than 133,000 small businesses and 1.2 million jobs in Canada.

We have been working closely with small businesses from the beginning of the pandemic. The new rent subsidy will be better targeted, easier to access and paid directly to small business tenants.

What would this look like in real terms for Canadian businesses? Let us look at a hair salon, for example, that followed public health and safety precautions and closed to the public back in March or April, like Trimz hair salon in my riding. It opened again over the summer as it was allowed to serve the public at a much lower capacity, and limited its number of customers in order to follow social distancing guidelines.

In Quebec, hair salons have been given permission to remain open until further notice and were open in the months of September and October. Let us say that in October their revenues were down 25%. On top of this, they incurred $2,500 in eligible rent costs for the first period of the rent subsidy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies, but it being 6:04 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wants to request a recorded vote or request that the motion be passed on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the division stands deferred until Thursday, November 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 6:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy), be read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-9.

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Calgary Midnapore had to leave the chamber prior to the vote concluding, so we would ask that her vote not be recorded.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #20

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 4, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes.

(House in committee of the whole, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair, resuming consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 4, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with regard to the Canada emergency rent subsidy and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, and the economy in general.

Before we begin debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how the proceedings will unfold over the next four hours.

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, November 4, the Chair will call members in a fashion consistent with the proportions observed during Oral Questions. The rotation used for questions will be the one used for the former Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Each member may address the House for not more than five minutes and may use that time to ask questions.

Members may share their time with one or more members, but must indicate their intention to do so to the chair.

The Chair will expect a minister's response to approximately reflect the time taken to ask the question. The debate will end after four hours, or when no member rises to speak.

We will now begin the debate with the hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, what is the dollar value of the national debt as of today?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I am not going to offer new projections, but let me remind the member that in the fiscal snapshot, the deficit—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, what is the debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it was $343.2 billion as of the fiscal snapshot. There are no new numbers tonight.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify for the finance minister that there is a difference between debt and deficits. I asked for the debt. Is she sure the debt is just $300 and some-odd billion?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, and I want to be clear with members. I am going to refer to numbers from the snapshot, not new numbers tonight. I will tell the member more with the next question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, does she know the debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I sure do. It was projected in the fiscal snapshot to be $1.060 trillion.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that number is hard for any of us to say, in fairness, so I will be charitable on that point.

Regarding all the new debt the government is adding, will it be repaid before interest rates rise?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said in my speech last week, we are extending the maturities of our debt to lock in current interest rates, which are at a 100-year low, our debt service charges.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That is perfect, Mr. Chair.

What percentage of the new debt the government has added since March has been locked in for more than five years?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

As I said, Mr. Chair, I am going to be offering detailed projections and numbers in my economic update later on this fall, not tonight, but I will cite the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, is it more than 50%?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

As I said, Mr. Chair, the finance minister's numbers on these issues are very sensitive and I am not going to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is actually not sensitive at all. It is published by the Bank of Canada. If the minister had just gone to the Bank of Canada's website, she would know that less than 10% of the new debt the government has borrowed is locked in for more than five years. The other 91% is locked in for shorter terms.

Why did the minister tell people that she was locking in low rates when, in fact, 91% of the debt is on short-term maturities?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have a program, as I said last week, moving into longer-term debt instruments. This is to lock in current rates. That is exactly what we are doing right now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is exactly the opposite of what the minister is doing. I am surprised that she did not visit the Bank of Canada website where she could have found out that less than 10% of the new debt her government has issued since March is long term. The rest is short term. In fact, it is of shorter duration than our pre-existing debt. Why did the minister mislead an audience last week when she claimed she was locking in debt for the long run while Bank of Canada data shows precisely the opposite?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government and the Bank of Canada's debt-management program is second to none in the world. We are making a careful and thoughtful effort to lock in longer-term maturities and move to longer-term instruments. That is what we are doing. Instruments are maturing all the time and are being moved into longer-maturity, lower-interest-rate debt.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is second to none in that it is the most expensive. Let us find out how expensive it is.

How much would it cost the government if there were a one-percentage-point increase in the effective rate of interest on our debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I need to challenge the first comment the member opposite made. Canada's debt is not the most expensive.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the question was how much would a one-percentage-point increase cost the government in extra interest costs on the national debt? How much? I just want a number.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member's assertion was that Canada's debt is the most expensive and that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, does the minister know how much?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, Canada is one of two G7 countries with a AAA credit rating. We borrow—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much would it cost the government if interest rates rose by 1% across our national debt? How much?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite is building an assumption into his questions that I strongly disagree with.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister cannot disagree with numbers. I am asking how much a 1% interest-rate increase would cost the government.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, actually one can absolutely disagree with implicit assertions.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance just announced that she intends to present an economic update this fall. Can she give us an approximate date or at least tell us whether she plans to present it in November or December?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I apologize to the House, but all I can say is that it will be this fall.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

At least I tried, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-9 extends the wage subsidy until next summer and puts in place real support for commercial rent. These are two measures we have been asking for for a long time and that we welcome. We are very happy about that, which is why we support the bill and hope it will pass quickly.

The parameters of the subsidies discussed here are announced until December 19. After that, the government will decide by regulation. I would like to know the criteria that the government will use to decide whether or not to change the subsidies: the economic situation, the evolution of the pandemic or the government's ability to pay? I would like to have a clear idea of what criteria the government will use as a basis.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

That is an excellent question, Mr. Chair.

The date was chosen so that the Canada emergency wage subsidy would coincide with the Canada emergency rent subsidy.

The three criteria that the hon. member listed are all important. I think the most important thing for us will be our country's economic situation, which is obviously very closely tied to the health situation.

For this reason, we have announced parameters until December 19. It is a matter of giving companies some certainty because it is important, but also to give us the necessary flexibility, because it is very difficult to know in advance what the economic and health situation will be at the end of the year.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for her answer.

Under the bill, if a business changes locations and the new lease for a smaller space is signed after October 9, will that business still be eligible for the Canada emergency rent subsidy or would it have to stay in its more expensive space to continue to receive the subsidy?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is a very important question about the details of the Canada emergency rent subsidy. I can assure the member that we intend to help businesses and find a solution for each of them. We are not looking for reasons not to pay the subsidy. Obviously, Canada is a big country with a big economy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for sharing her intention. That is reassuring.

I will give her time to finish her answer.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I simply want to add that this is a big program. This is the first time that Canada is going to pay a rent subsidy directly to businesses. We added an element that, in my opinion, is very important and that is targeted assistance for businesses that are subject to a public health lockdown order. We need to work on that and see if there are any gaps. However, the intention is to help our businesses.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister.

Why did the government decide not to make the rent subsidy retroactive to last summer and spring?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.

We did discuss this issue. The reason is that we always have to ask ourselves the following: What is the purpose of our measures? In my view, the purpose is to create a bridge for the businesses that are viable today and encourage them to continue working. Through our programs, we must think about the future, not the past. Through the new programs, we need to try to help the businesses that will be working in the future. That is the reason.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, with the emergency rent subsidy program, the original contract this summer was given to a company whose leadership has links to the chief of staff of the Prime Minister. Landlords could only apply if they had a commercial mortgage at the beginning, and this was a non-tendered contract given to a commercial mortgage company. Therefore, it failed most of the businesses that should have been able to access the commercial rent subsidy.

We support the legislation moving forward, but the minister does have to recognize that there were many businesses that did not have access to the program, and their survival is dependent on having retroactive access to the rent subsidy. The NDP is offering an amendment to Bill C-9 that would achieve that, back to April 1, and allow those companies to access the rent subsidy.

Will the government accept the NDP amendment and provide the necessary support for it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I think that is an entirely reasonable question, and one that I have wrestled with. At the end of the day, my answer is the one I offered to my colleague from the Bloc. I think that our programs need to be focused on the future. We need to focus on supporting businesses in their activities going forward. What we want to do is to create a bridge from today to tomorrow and not focus on the past, but I do thank the member for the question and for his obvious concern for the businesses in his riding and across the country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, that means we will see businesses going under that would not have if they had support from the government in this regard.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very critical about the lack of transparency, which basically was ended in August. Will the minister endeavour to start providing supports to the finance committee so that we can be kept current of government expenditures?

On the question of regulations through Bill C-9, coming through after December 19, what is the current scenario that the government sees for the regulations that would take us from December to June? Is it having maintenance of the same level of supports for businesses and for the wage subsidy?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me start with the second half of that question, which is a really important one.

In choosing December 19 as the date to which we are setting the levels for the wage and rent subsidies, we have tried to strike a balance. We are striking a balance with, on the one hand, the fact that business owners are telling us, as I am sure they are telling everyone in the House, that they want certainty and stability and they want to be able to plan. However, on the other side of the balance is the reality that the situation with coronavirus, the situation with the global economy and, frankly, the situation with the North American economy is very unpredictable and very volatile. Therefore, we are trying to offer certainty while at the same time having flexibility for the future.

I would point out, as the member is very well aware, we have assured business owners that these two programs will be in place until June—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, in regard to wage subsidy relief or any other government supports, how many company applications have been refused because the company is involved with international tax evasion or the company is named in tax-evasion papers like the Bahamas papers, the Panama papers or the paradise papers, or the company uses or has used international tax havens?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am sorry. It is because of the sound. What was the first part of the question? I know it was how many companies in tax havens and stuff, but companies doing what?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, how many companies have had their applications refused because of that involvement?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, is the member asking about the BCAP, the LEEFF or the wage subsidy program?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will ask the hon. member just to clarify the question back to the hon. minister and we will proceed accordingly.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to really apologize to the NDP finance critic. I just did not hear, maybe because of the transmission, exactly the first part of the question. It is business owners turned down for which program?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, I referred to the wage subsidy or LEEFF or any other program, and I hope I will not be penalized on the time.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member for the NDP knows, so far for the LEEFF program we only have two businesses we have qualified. Other businesses are currently being reviewed and the LEEFF program absolutely has very tough criteria around environmental performance, around executive compensation, around being sure that these are companies that are paying their taxes in Canada and around foreign ownership assets, so we are being very, very careful in that program. The LEEFF program is one which is very bespoke and there is a tiger team that goes through the financials of each company very carefully.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, in her speech last week, the minister said that she would “impose” limits on the debt. What limits?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I think in my answer around the retroactivity of the rent subsidy, I have been pointing to some limits that our government is imposing. We are thoughtful about targeting our support where—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, is there a dollar figure to which she would limit the debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said in my speech last week—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, is there a dollar figure she would impose on the debt, yes or no?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I said last week that we are mindful that limits exist.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, what are they?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is no blank cheque.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, is the limit a percentage or a dollar figure?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, unlike the member opposite, I am the finance minister and I need to be very careful with my words.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wish she were as careful with numbers. What is the number?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am absolutely as careful and that is why I carefully said last week—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is a very direct question. What is the dollar-value limit that she claimed and she promised she would impose on our debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite should be careful with words. I did not claim in my speech last week anything of the sort that he is suggesting. What I said was that there are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, actually she did. She said that she would “impose” limits on the debt. I am just asking her to tell us. What are her limits?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I use my words very carefully and I said that I would have more to say about the restraints we would impose on ourselves in the fiscal update we will offer later this year.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she seems to want to take back her speech now. She said that she would impose limits on our debt. She said it, not me. Tell us. What is the limit?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I chose my words very carefully in my speech. I would be happy to read it to the members gathered here tonight. I was very careful in saying, yes there are limits, and that I would have more to say about them later this year, not tonight.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she said that her government will “impose those limits upon itself”. Those are her words, not mine. What limits?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is a very fair quote and I meant what I said. I also said I would have more to say later this year in my fall fiscal update. It is not coming tonight.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have unlimited time to hear her limits on the debt.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think our time is actually limited tonight. As I said, I would be happy to read my speech again. I wrote it myself; I am proud of it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, well, then just tell us the limit. They are her words.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, actually, in my speech I was quite clear that I would have more to say about the limits we would impose upon ourselves in the fall economic update, and I am going to stick to those words and that commitment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, all right, so there are still no limits.

What percentage of the government's debt is now owned by the Bank of Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, our government is operating very much within the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, what percentage of our debt is owed to the Bank of Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said, Canada has the fiscal firepower to do what it needs to do. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, is there a limit to the amount the Bank of Canada can print to lend to the government?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite should be very careful not to ask the finance minister questions better addressed to the Bank of Canada. I am aware of the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, who holds the shares of the Bank of Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said, I am the finance minister.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she holds the shares of the Bank of Canada. She is the shareholder. She holds them all, so she is the only one we can ask in the House of Commons.

How much can the bank print to fund lending to the government?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to be very serious for a moment. The independence of the Bank of Canada is one of the central pillars of the Canadian economy, and I am not going to be frivolous about that or make frivolous comments.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it would not be frivolous to tell us how much the bank can print to lend to the government. These are not frivolous questions. These questions are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. If she considers that frivolous, I am afraid we have someone in this job who does not care about taxpayers' money.

How much can the Bank of Canada print to lend to the Government of Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think it is really important to be clear that one of the central principles of how the Canadian economy works is that we have an independent Bank of Canada, something, by the way, that the member opposite has raised questionable questions about. I will not play—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much has the bank printed this year to fund lending to the government?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I really want to make clear tonight that an independent Bank of Canada is key to how the Canadian economy works. I think this is something that all members of the House—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the federal government is dependent on the printing presses over at the Bank of Canada. How much has the Government of Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada this year?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it represents a profound misunderstanding of how the Canadian economy or any other economy works to suggest that there is some kind of questionable relationship between our government and the Bank of Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, if it was not questionable, she would be willing to talk about it out in the open. I asked how much the Bank of Canada has printed to pay for the government's debts. It is just a mathematical question that should be publicly available. Why is the minister hiding it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am not hiding anything. What I am doing is two things. One, I am being very clear. This is important for markets, it is important for Canadians and it is important for our Bank of Canada. I will stand here all night long defending the independence, the propriety and the fine judgment of the people in the Bank of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she will not tell the people of Canada how much of their money is being debased to fund her government's spending.

I will ask one last time, and then we will know that she will not answer and she is covering it up. How much of the debt of the Government of Canada has been financed through printing by the Bank of Canada this year?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is profoundly irresponsible of the member opposite to suggest that a finance minister defending the independence of the Bank of Canada is “covering up” something. That is not how we do things in Canada.

I am happy for members here to ask questions about our programs. I am happy for members here to ask questions about our—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do not think the minister has given a single number with regard to any of these questions. I do not know why that is. If it is because she believes that Canadians do not have the right to know, she should just say so.

She will not tell us the limits on the debt. She will not tell us how much the Bank of Canada has printed to fund her government's debt. She will not tell us whether the debt will be paid back before interest rates rise.

Is there anything, mathematical or numerical, about our debt that anyone on the government side can share with the Canadian taxpayers, who will have to repay that debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me say a couple of numerical and mathematical things for the member opposite.

The first is that the debt service charges, as a share of GDP, that Canada is paying today are the lowest in 100 years. Notwithstanding the very considerable support we have given the economy so far, the debt service charges are the lowest in 100 years. That is a very—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are getting somewhere now.

How much would they go up in cost if interest rates rose just 1%?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me share another very important number with the member opposite. Seventy-six per cent of COVID-19 job losses recovered in Canada—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, again, the minister cannot even tell us what it would cost Canadian taxpayers for interest rates to go up just 1%, which would still be far below the historical average. Why is she so afraid to give that number?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am not afraid of much, and I would like the member opposite to come clean with Canadians. The Conservatives need to decide if they are the party of austerity or they believe in supporting Canadians through this crisis.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we believe in supporting Canadians through this crisis. I can answer a question; now let us see if she can try. That is how it is done.

A 1% increase in interest would cost the Canadian taxpayers how much?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me share one motto I had during the NAFTA negotiations. It is a motto that has served us very well. I believe that engaging in hypothetical speculation is never appropriate for a minister of the Crown.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, does she think it is hypothetical speculation that someday interest rates could go up 1%? Is she telling us that she does not plan for that scenario?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said in my speech last week, and as I have said a number of times this evening, we will be sharing detailed fiscal projections in the fall economic statement. That is not for tonight.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she claims the Bank of Canada is independent, but she also claims she is going to ban the bank from ever raising interest rates, even one percentage point. If she is not going to ban them from doing it, how is she going to stop them from ever raising interest rates?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is highly inappropriate to put words in the mouth of any minister, especially the finance minister, suggesting that there is any form of coercion over our independent central bank.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she has now admitted that the bank could raise interest rates in the future. We are back to where we started.

How much would it cost if it raised them just 1%?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said, it is highly inappropriate that the member said, not insinuated, that our government would in some way coerce the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, she cannot answer that question. Let us move to another.

Other than Italy, which G7 country has higher unemployment than Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to talk about jobs. Canada has recovered 76% of our job losses, and the U.S. is at only 52%.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the question was this: Can she name even one country in the G7 other than Italy that has higher unemployment than Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the more important, relevant figure is labour force participation. Ours is higher than that of the U.S., Japan, South Korea and Germany. The Economist has a piece this week about Canada's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, all the countries she just listed have lower unemployment than Canada. She cannot name a single country outside Italy in the G7 that has higher unemployment than Canada. Is there a single country in the G20 that has a higher deficit as a share of GDP than Canada? If so, could she name that country?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, again, I am sorry to have to teach economics to the member opposite, but the really relevant figure is the debt-to-GDP ratio and Canada today has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, talking down to Canadians will not change the facts. We should be speaking with Canadians in the spirit of respect. I ask a respectful question. Is there a single country in the G20 that has a higher deficit-to-GDP ratio than Canada? Could she name even one such country?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me ask a respectful question in turn of the member opposite. Is there one country in the G20 that has done a better job than Canada in protecting its workers and its businesses?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, yes, there is Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Germany. Japan, Germany and Taiwan all have lower unemployment and far lower mortality rates during COVID. The minister asked me to name a country? I just named them. This is how in the House of Commons it is possible for members to answer questions, and even members of the opposition can do it.

Maybe a member of the government could do the same. Could she name even one country with a higher deficit as a share of GDP, even one, in the G20?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is important for the answers to be accurate. Let me just point out that Germany today has 238 new cases of COVID per million. Canada has 73 new cases of COVID per million. It is too high in Canada, but I want to be clear with Canadians. Right now, in the G7, we are doing a pretty good job. When it comes to employment we have a higher labour force participation rate than Germany and Japan. Germany is 55.9% and Japan is 62.2%. We are at 65%.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals have filibustered the ethics and finance committees for over 45 hours to this point, with more to come I am sure, and it is all done in the name of a cover-up. This is to hide documents from Canadians and block the truth about the Prime Minister's corruption from coming to light.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians the amount of taxpayer dollars wasted to continue this cover-up and why these resources were better used filibustering these committees instead of getting help to Canadians who so desperately need it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, let me be really clear. There has been no cover-up by our government. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's chief of staff testified at length before committee and took questions, as did the Clerk of the Privy Council. This matter has been thoroughly aired before Canadians. The questions have been asked and answered. What I would say for the member opposite and all members in the House is that Canadians really want us to focus on them and to get through COVID together.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, then why waste all the time and money filibustering at committees?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government's intention and commitment is to focus on supporting Canadians. That is why we are here tonight. I am very glad, by the way, that we are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, let us talk about an attempt at helping Canadians that failed, and that was first rent program introduced by the government. Many small business owners in my riding have reached out to my office, saying that the clock is ticking and time is running out for their businesses. We know these businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the government dropped the ball and outsourced the program when the CRA was more than capable of administering it. Why outsource it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I agree with the member opposite that the CRA is highly competent and, in fact, I would like to take the opportunity now to say how grateful I am to all the hard-working people there.

That is why the new rent support program, like the wage subsidy, will be administered through the CRA. We know it can do it. We have a platform now with which businesses are familiar. That is why we are choosing that path going forward.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, we always knew the CRA could administer it. We are glad that the government has caught up.

Why did the government say it had no choice but to have MCAP administer the program to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in cost to Canadians?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows very well, and as members in the House do, because I think we will be supporting these programs together, we have changed, significantly, the architecture of the rent support program. Now it goes directly to the tenants. Provinces and landlords are not involved.

Our new program is an improvement. Better is always possible. Members—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, how many times did the minister's office or the PMO talk to Rob Silver about the rent program?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, I was not finance minister at that time. I can say that I never spoke to Mr. Silver about this program.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister should take note of what happened to her predecessor.

The Baylis ventilator is produced cheaper, yet sold for $100 million more than its competitors. It follows the objective fact that the government will always put its Liberal friends to the front of the queue and line their pockets whenever it can.

Was Frank Baylis' deep connections to the Liberal Party of Canada the determining factor in awarding this contract?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for asking this question, because it enables me to talk about the effort that Canadians undertook across the country. When we had a call to action, over 6,700 Canadians stepped up to help us produce personal protective equipment for frontline health care workers. We are very proud of these efforts. We are very proud of the fact that these Canadians have delivered for our frontline health care workers across the country.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, why pay more for a ventilator that had no regulatory approval anywhere in the world, except if the reason is that they were a Liberal?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the hon. colleague that in March and April, when we were dealing with the early stages of this pandemic, we made a call to action to all businesses. We did not look at which party they voted for or their political affiliation. Canadians stepped up in a big way to support frontline health care workers, and we are very proud of that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, the rent program was introduced in May. When did the minister realize that there were serious design flaws?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, what we are here to talk about tonight are the new programs that our government is putting in place.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, the minister is also a member of Parliament who, I expect, supports many small businesses in her riding. If she is like anyone else in the House, they learned very quickly in May and June that this program was not adequate.

When was the decision made to redesign this rent assistance program?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the spring when COVID struck our country, there was no playbook.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals knew there were flaws with the program. There was obviously a decision made to redesign it as we have a redesigned program. When the Liberals prorogued for six weeks, they said it was because they needed to focus on a COVID response. It was not about the WE Charity they insisted.

Immediately after the Speech from the Throne, if this was about a COVID response, why have we been debating the Judges Act and other legislation and not this important bill for people who need assistance?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad we are debating this important bill now and I am glad we have been able to include some really innovative measures, particularly the lockdown support. This is a new program. I have not seen one like it anywhere in the world. It will provide targeted support to businesses subject to local lockdowns. It is going to get us through the winter.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, we had six weeks of prorogation. We have had six weeks of sitting in the House. The Liberals have now finally introduced a bill and they insist it has to be passed by Friday.

When the minister was an opposition member, did she not believe that taking a few hours to hear from expert witnesses at committee did provide valuable input, especially if they had legislation that would spend $5 billion or more?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite said that we, the government, believe this has to be passed by Friday. I would like to respectfully say I do not think that is some kind of peculiar conviction of ours. All Canadian businesses, all Canadian provinces and territories need this legislation.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, if they needed this legislation, why was it not introduced right after the Speech from the Throne and why did the government prorogue for six weeks? Businesses have been sitting with no support and they have been closing their doors. How many businesses had to close their doors in July, August and September, while those guys dithered with their legislation?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, businesses do need this support and that is why we are debating this legislation late into tonight. I would like to remind members, as I know they well know, that the support will be retroactive to September 27, so people will be covered for October. This is support our businesses need and support I hope together we can get for them.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have always found that having a few hours and a few panels of expert witnesses actually improves legislation. The minister insists that we have to move fast because Liberals moved so slow. Why are they so reluctant to hear from a few people who really understand what is happening and who might actually improve the legislation, by refusing throughout this pandemic to have a reasonable process for billions in spending?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am a little puzzled by the contradictions embedded in that question. On the one hand, the member opposite is quite rightly pointing out that businesses need support now. I could not agree more. On the other hand, the member opposite is asking why we want to pass this legislation with alacrity. The first half of the question answers the second half.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, let me go back.

We had six weeks' prorogation so that the Liberals could plan for COVID and have proper legislation in place. We have come back to this House. We have been in this House for six weeks, and what have we been discussing? We have been discussing legislation about judges. As important as that is, and the other legislation, it is nothing compared to the business owners' needs.

When I talk about a couple of hours to hear from experts, I am talking about three months ago, and they would have improved this minister's programs. Why are the Liberals so reluctant to allow proper process in this House to scrutinize billions and billions in spending?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

As I said, Mr. Chair, we need to decide what matters most. I am firmly convinced, and I actually believe that in their hearts of hearts everyone in this House shares the conviction, that at the end of the day what matters the most is getting support to our business owners now, and getting support to them with alacrity. That is what we are committed to doing. These programs are good programs that would provide essential support as we fight the second wave of COVID. I hope the members opposite will join us in supporting them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Canada emergency wage subsidy is still available to political parties under the Bill C-9. The Liberal government puts forward programs, and then the Liberal Party takes advantage of them.

A poll conducted in June found that almost half of the population was against the practice. Even Liberal voters were against it. There is a real uneasiness at seeing all the federal parties, except the Bloc, taking advantage of a measure voted for by elected officials. The wage subsidy is there for the economy and for businesses, not for political parties.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance not think that what the Liberals have done is unjustifiable?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her question.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is designed to help employers protect the jobs that Canadians depend on and to rehire employees who have already been laid off. The support applies to employers of all sizes in all sectors, including not-for-profit organizations that have been hard hit by COVID-19.

To date, more than 3.8 million employees across the country are being supported by the wage subsidy. It is a good program.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, in the poll, 57% of respondents called for the amounts to be paid back.

Will they pay it back?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would once again like to note the importance of the wage subsidy program for the 3.8 million Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, we agree on Bill C-9 because for months, SMEs have needed urgent assistance.

On April 11, the Bloc Québécois started calling for support for fixed costs. Let's talk about the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. That program was poorly designed. It was too restrictive and too rigid. For example, chiropractors in Repentigny could not receive that assistance because the property owner did not apply.

Why did the government wait until November to support our businesses and their employees when help was and still is urgently needed?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I obviously agree that we must now provide assistance directly to the businesses to help with fixed costs and rent. That is why are introducing a bill that does exactly that. I am pleased that the hon. member agrees that this is a good step to take. I hope we can do this quickly.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for her reply.

The government has a record of announcing programs well before they are voted on and implemented. Bill C-9 was introduced one month after it was announced. That said, better late than never.

However, businesses need predictability, and several hard-hit sectors, including the aerospace industry, hotels in urban areas, culture, festivals and even sugar shacks, need targeted programs.

How will the government ensure that no sector falls through the cracks?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is another good and important question.

I will start with the rent subsidy because I want to point out a new component that is really important for Quebec, and that is targeted support for businesses subject to new lockdowns. I am very supportive of the measures that the Province of Quebec has taken to combat the coronavirus, and this additional assistance will help the province make the right decisions. This is an innovative component that I am very pleased with.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, my question focused much more on targeted programs.

Because the emergency commercial rent assistance program was ill-conceived, businesses lost a lot of money between March and September. I know that other members have asked the same question, but I will ask it once more to highlight the importance of all the telephone calls we received about this, as well as the importance of small and medium-sized businesses.

Has the government considered making the new measure retroactive to March 2020?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the member said, I already answered this question, but I will repeat what I said.

The assistance will be retroactive to September 27. This is important because it means that this program will cover October. That is a good question about making this measure even more retroactive, and it is something we will have to consider. However, I believe that we must focus on the future. We must help businesses that are operating now, and we need to help them keep their doors open in the future. I prefer to focus on that.

[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. Chair, I realize it is questions and answers. I am going to spend my five minutes expanding on some thoughts on what I think is a really important debate here.

One of the things I noticed about the member for Carleton is that he is a master at manipulation of numbers and stats. I would like to demonstrate just why I believe that. The member for Carleton talks about unemployment and tries to give a false impression to Canadians, as if somehow the government is not doing as well as it is actually doing.

Let me give a relatively short history of it. It was not that long ago when we, back in 2015, formed a majority government. The Prime Minister back then said, as all Liberal members of Parliament believe, that our first priority was going to be Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That meant investing in Canadians. Whether it was giving a tax break, supporting our seniors, increasing disposable income or having that extra tax on the one per cent wealthiest in Canada, we recognized the value of supporting Canada's middle class.

We worked with small business owners in every region of our country, and it worked. We generated, with the help of other stakeholders and Canadians in particular, well over a million jobs in the first four years. We were on track to continue to hit record highs. In fact, we have much lower unemployment than Stephen Harper ever had when he was prime minister. Even in Stephen Harper's dreams, he could not achieve what Canadians were able to achieve by having a government that was far more progressive in dealing with our economy, whether it was investing in tax breaks or investing in infrastructure.

Now, we hear the member for Carleton try to give the impression that our policies have not necessarily been working. He talks about our wage subsidy program, and he talks about the rental assistance program and he is saying that they are just not working. Then, he cites as his reason that we have a higher unemployment rate than other G7 countries, not all of them but most others.

When it came to the pandemic, after our getting record low numbers of unemployment, when the pandemic hit there were Canadians in all regions of our country who lost jobs. That is why the Government of Canada stepped up and provided programs such as the CERB. Some 8.9 million Canadians relied on support from the CERB program, a very effective program. The wage subsidy program, part of what this bill is about, provided and saved thousands of jobs throughout our country.

If we look at the results of those programs, and we can add on the rental program, we will see that Canada was far better at getting people back to work. Members of the Conservative Party might not believe this, but it is true. Almost 76% of the jobs that were lost have been coming back as a direct result of our policy. I compare that to the U.S.A., at 52%.

With less than a minute left, I can say that this legislation is good stuff and I suspect that is why the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of it. The legislation would continue on with the wage subsidy program because, unlike the former government, we actually listen to what Canadians have to say. That is why we see the changes that we have within this legislation. Whether it is the wage subsidy program or the rental assistance program, this is a government that recognizes the value of small businesses and will continue to be there.

Our Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister are committed, day in and day out, to protecting the jobs that Canadians are going to continue to depend on to be there. As our policies have clearly demonstrated, they are working.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, will the minister backdate the commercial rent assistance program to April 1 for the tenants who could not apply, now that the government has admitted that it had a design-flawed program that excluded two-thirds of Canadian businesses?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, let me start by pointing out that the rent subsidy that we are debating tonight does go back to September 27.

With regard to going back further, let me just say this. The objective of our program is to support the vulnerable but viable businesses across our country and to help create a bridge for them to get through—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, the minister earlier cited that she wanted to be forward thinking. Does she agree and believe that these small businesses that did not get any rent help for six months are coming forward with them?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me point out the help that will be available if we can pass this legislation.

Starting from September 27, up to 65% of wages would be paid, up to 65% of the rent would be paid, and if one is subject to a local lockdown restriction, 90% of the rent would be paid. That is real support and our—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, I ask for just a yes or a no. Does the minister understand or agree that the money, the debt, comes forward?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have been clear that the program goes from September 27 forward.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, does she believe it is an injustice for those who did not qualify because their landlords would not apply?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to listen to the businesses in our ridings. I also think it is appropriate for the government to focus on businesses in the future, viability in the future.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, can she tell us how much money the mortgage company MCAP got paid to administer the CECRA program?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, my focus as finance minister is putting this new rent support program in place, where the support will go directly to tenants.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, has the minister costed out what it would cost to help the two-thirds of businesses that did not qualify for the government's flawed program?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the key issue here is a question of focus. My focus is on tomorrow, not on yesterday. My focus is on helping businesses get through the second wave.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, does the minister feel that small businesses have to focus on the six months where they got no help, yes or no?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, businesses have had help since the beginning of the pandemic. They have had loans, including a significant forgivable portion through CEBA. They have had access to the wage subsidy. Going forward, they will have an additional expansion of CEBA.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, many mom-and-pop businesses actually did not get any help with the wage subsidy and they were counting on commercial rent. Does the minister believe that it was an injustice that they did not get any help?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is one of the reasons we put CEBA in place, so that the smallest businesses in our country can get support. That is why we are adding another $20,000, including $10,000 forgivable. It is also—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, does the minister agree or believe that, with the amount of deficit that we are running to help everybody, the people who were excluded from the commercial rent assistance program should still have to contribute to paying that back through their children or grandchildren, or whoever is going to pay it back?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said, I think it is entirely right for MPs to be concerned about all businesses in their ridings, but I have thought about this really carefully and my view is that the inherently limited resources of the government should be focused on the future. They should be focused on supporting businesses to keep on operating. That means that going-forward support should be and will be our focus.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, does the minister believe that there should be some strings attached in terms of the targeted bailouts and full participation of employers in Canada in terms of active and laid-off workers?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure what targeted bailouts the member opposite is referring to, but certainly with LEEFF there are very stringent conditions and that is entirely appropriate.

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

Mr. Chair, my question will be very simple. I will quote someone who has spoken a number of times tonight and who said:

That person said, “Let me be very, very clear.”

We have heard that many times, but I have never heard anyone as unclear as her this evening.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been critical of the fact that the minimal amount of information that is publicly available to track this spending is lacking, thus making it more challenging for parliamentarians to perform their critical role in overseeing government spending. Why is the government hiding information from Canadians?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for raising this question.

If my colleague carefully reads what has happened over the last few days, he will see that we have launched an open government information system that contains many files that he can access online. We also have a system that displays the supplementary estimates and the main estimates in detail, with hundreds of pages that he can easily access.

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

Mr. Chair, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that there is currently no public government document that provides a complete list of all measures announced to date or updated cost estimates. Why are they so bent on refusing to provide these answers?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I commend and thank my colleague once again for his interest in this issue.

He knows very well that transparency and access to information are extremely important in normal times, and they are just as important in a pandemic. That is why we are working so hard with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and others to provide all the necessary information.

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

Mr. Chair, I would encourage the President of the Treasury Board to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report carefully.

Why is this government saying two different things? On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who clearly says that he has no respect for Canadians' money, that he has not set a limit on future spending and that he will continue to borrow recklessly and without constraint. On the other hand, we have a finance minister who says she is setting limits but will not disclose what those limits are.

Where are we going with this government? How far into debt will this government plunge Canadians?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague again correctly brings up the importance of transparency and openness.

I encourage him once again to visit the InfoBase portal, which contains exactly 316 specific files dealing exclusively with COVID-19. As well, as I said, there is another portal where he will find a data set on the budgetary expenditures we are currently discussing.

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

Mr. Chair, the Liberals are stonewalling the Standing Committee on Finance, they are stonewalling the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, they prorogued Parliament, and now they want us to believe that they are being transparent.

The President of the Treasury Board has obviously not read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Why is he hiding information from Canadians?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, on the contrary, we discuss these things every day.

In fact, we are doing so again today. That is why these discussions are important. I therefore congratulate my colleague and thank him for taking part in these discussions.

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

Mr. Chair, we are discussing, but we are not getting any answers.

We are asking for very simple things. When are the Liberals going to stop seeing Canadians' wallets as an all-you-can-eat buffet? Canada's workers of today and tomorrow and those who have not yet been born will have to pay the bill racked up by this Prime Minister, who thinks that nothing is too expensive if it can get him votes.

Why is he hiding all this information from Canadians? Why can he not give us the real numbers today?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will respond to the first part of this question, which I find a bit disturbing.

I am sure that my colleague does not want to propose austerity as a solution to the current crisis. If that is what he has in mind, I think he should be more specific and explain to Canadians how an austerity program could help them during the public health and economic crisis we are going through.

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

Mr. Chair, I want the President of the Treasury Board to do the job he gets paid to do, which is to give Canadians the information they are entitled to so good decisions can be made.

I want the President of the Treasury Board to tell us when the Liberals will tell Canadians the truth and why they are so afraid of holding public meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, the member is absolutely right about the importance of committee work.

I am sure that he himself does a very good job in committee. I am sure that, like all members of the House, the other members of the committees he mentioned will do essential work to ensure high-quality, effective and transparent government programs.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, the pandemic relief programs have been unfair and way too often ineffective. Job creators in my riding have fallen through the cracks. For months they have been begging the government to fix the commercial rent assistance program, but were completely ignored. We are happy to see the Liberals are finally paying attention, but for so many it is already too late. Why all of a sudden did the government change it? Why did the government not adopt the Conservatives' sliding scale for rent relief six months ago?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Chair, we have put a range of programs out to help small businesses. Those emergency measures are helping businesses keep their people on payroll and helping pay for those fixed costs that are so important to keeping their businesses alive. The small business loan is giving them some additional liquidity to bridge them through to better times beyond COVID-19. This program is in direct response to those businesses that want access to these important fixed costs directly. I am really pleased to be debating this legislation tonight.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, looking through the estimates, I noticed the Auditor General has still not been given the funds she needs to properly audit the government's out-of-control spending. Meanwhile, the same government is investing millions of new dollars in CRA to audit the books of small businesses with the threat of a 275% penalty. What are we, the Mafia or something? Why is the government aggressively going after the books of mom-and-pop shops, but refuses to open its own books?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chair, we have the fortune of having a strong Auditor General, with whom we are extremely pleased to collaborate. She is extremely engaged with us so we can provide her the supports that she and her office deserve and will need in order to carry out her important duties.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, businesses across Canada are calling on the Liberals to safely reopen the economy. The government owes them a way to get back to work in an environment that is fair and dependable. One day a business is open, the next day it is closed. One industry is supported while the other is ignored. Government incompetence has created a wild wild west. When will it present a plan that allows all of Canada's businesses to get back to work safely?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, let me start by being very clear that it is up to provinces and territories and provincial and territorial public health officers to make the very difficult decisions about whether additional targeted local lockdown restrictions are necessary. I think that we need to support our public health officers across the country where they are introducing these limited targeted local lockdowns. That is what it is going to take to fight the second wave and to stop a huge resurgence.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, NHL players took rapid tests before hitting the ice. Even pro poker players take rapid tests before they play in tournaments. If rapid tests allow athletes, celebrities and pro poker players to do their jobs, why not allow regular Canadian businesses, like cinemas, restaurants and event centres, to get back to work using on-site rapid testing?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to disagree very strongly with the core premise of that question. There is no silver bullet right now anywhere in the world. Countries like France and Germany that members opposite have cited as using rapid tests are currently experiencing such a surge in coronavirus, they have introduced draconian lockdowns.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, Canadians need the finance committee to get to pre-budget consultations. When will the government stop the cover-up and end the filibuster?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I feel so strongly about the previous question, I am going to finish my answer. We cannot peddle snake oil to Canadians and we have to be clear with Canadians that it is better to act quickly with limited local restrictions than to wait too long and have a raging virus.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals have been filibustering for 30 hours. I just left another one. Will the government stop the cover-up and end the filibuster at finance committee, yes or no?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government is very glad to be here in force this evening answering questions of all members of Parliament.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a very simple question. My constituents want the finance minister to tell them what Canada's debt is right now.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I apologize in advance for my French.

I will not give any new numbers, but I can repeat and remind members of the numbers that were announced in July.

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

Mr. Chair, in that case, what are the numbers?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the debt that was announced in July was $1.060 trillion according the economic and fiscal snapshot.

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

Mr. Chair, according to the finance minister, what is the estimated deficit for this year, which will end in April?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am sorry, but once again, I will not be giving out any new numbers this evening. They will be released later this year. However, in July, we gave a specific number for the projected deficit, which was $343.2 billion.

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

Mr. Chair, does the minister expect the deficit to climb to $400 billion or $450 billion by April?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I said last week and as we said in the throne speech, we will provide new numbers later this year.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister is well aware that the interest rate, which is very low right now, will not remain low forever.

If the interest rate were to go up 0.25% or 1%, what impact would that have on Canada's debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the member agrees with me that the interest rate is very low in Canada and around the world right now.

To be clear, in proportion to the size of our economy, Canada's interest rate is at a 100-year low.

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

Mr. Chair, if the rate went up, what impact would that have? It is a very simple question.

We know that we have a $1-trillion debt. If the interest rate were to go up just a quarter point, what impact would that have on Canada's finances?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, during my time as minister of foreign affairs and during the NAFTA negotiations, I abided by a very effective rule: never answer hypothetical questions. It is inappropriate for a minister to answer such questions.

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

Mr. Chair, how was my question hypothetical? We know that the debt is $1 trillion and that it is bound to increase by 0.25% sooner or later.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to highlight something that the member said himself, specifically, that interest rates are currently very low. The interest rate we are paying today in Canada is at a 100-year low. It is very important that Canadians understand that.

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

Mr. Chair, clearly, the minister does not want to answer the question.

Bill C-9 is retroactive to what date?

In other words, when can people start taking advantage of the measures included in the bill, once it passes?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his excellent question.

That will depend on our actions and our willingness to pass it quickly. It will also depend a great deal on the Senate. I would be very grateful if the Conservative Party could speak with the Conservative senators and help us pass this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, we know that there will be a retroactive date from which applications can be filed.

Regardless of when the bill passes, what is that date?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I hope I have understood the question.

The commercial rent subsidy will be retroactive to September 27, so the month of October will be covered.

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

Mr. Chair, a company in my riding purchased a business in mid-March, at the start of the pandemic. Since then, it has never been able to access the wage subsidy even though it never ceased operations.

Will Bill C-9 fix this problem with the previous bill? Will people who purchased a business at the beginning of the pandemic and became ineligible for the subsidy have access to it?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

During the pandemic, we discovered that there were some very unique cases. I will ask the member to speak with me and my staff. We will look at the particulars of this company and see what we can do.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister boasted just recently that 378,000 new jobs were created in September. Economists are predicting only 58,000 new jobs in October. It seems to me that this is not a consistent plan for a reasonable recovery.

What is the government's plan for continued, consistent job growth?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, the member is absolutely right that the September job numbers were strong, stronger than economists predicted. That is an accomplishment by all Canadians.

Having said that, as the member opposite knows, since then we have entered into a second wave of the pandemic. The provinces are fighting it. Many have put in place local lockdown provisions. That is the right thing to do, but the lockdowns will have a short-term cost.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, to will follow up on my previous colleague's question about businesses that do not fit the box in the one-size-fits-all approach of the government subsidies being offered to business owners, what avenues are there for them to seek some kind of assistance from the government?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, inevitably, when we create programs to support Canadians, we need to have broad-based programs. Those are the programs we are voting on this week, and I know Canadian business owners need them and want them. An additional area where business owners can get support is through the regional development agencies.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, in the recent throne speech, the Prime Minister indicated that Canada was going to borrow money and spend money because the Liberals recognized that Canadians could not. Whose money does the finance minister think they are borrowing?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, we could have made a choice not to provide the CERB to Canadian workers who lost their jobs because of COVID. We could have chosen not to provide the wage subsidy. We could have chosen not to provide the CEBA. Business owners would have gone broke. Canadians would have lost their homes. That was not our choice; it was the right choice.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, Canadians have leveraged their assets and their homes to finance their businesses and pay for their everyday expenses. They have gone to their banks and their banks have given them lines of credit and established credit limits.

The Government of Canada has gone to the Bank of Canada. Has the Bank of Canada established a credit limit for the government?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, questions for the Bank of Canada are properly addressed to the Bank of Canada. I respect the independence of the Bank of Canada, and I urge all members of the House to do so as well.

When it comes to Canadian businesses, I know that a lot of Canadian business owners have made great—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, that shows maybe how the minister has a failed understanding of how finances really work because when Canadians go to their banks, their banks tell them what their credit limits are. Has the Bank of Canada provided the Government of Canada, the borrower, a credit limit?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, if we want to get into a discussion of how finances really work as the member opposite suggests, I think we do need to realize that the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada is entirely different from the relationship between a commercial borrower and a commercial bank.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, other democracies in our G7 and G20 groups have been able to present budgets even during difficult times like the past six months in COVID. Why has our government failed to produce a budget?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as we committed to in the Speech from the Throne, we will be providing a fall update later this year, which will provide detailed projections and detailed further information on both what we have done so far and our government's plans going forward.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, recently the House passed a Conservative motion to put a pause on CRA audits for businesses that have received the wage subsidy. Can the minister tell us why the Liberals did not support putting a pause on the CRA for conducting audits and why they wanted to incur those further hardships for businesses?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, the last thing I want to do is add in any way to the real hardships Canadian businesses are facing. That is why I am here tonight with a brand new rent subsidy program, with lockdown support and with the extension of the wage subsidy. We are here for Canadian businesses and we are going to be here for Canadian businesses with this program until next summer.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank all members for agreeing to take this expedited approach to ensure that we look at Bill C-9 and try get it passed quickly. The minister has spoken a lot tonight about the historic low interest rates and debt servicing charges for the Government of Canada, but the average Canadian is not getting any breaks on interest payments and the six months' deferral on mortgages is over and people are experiencing a real fear of having to go bankrupt on mortgage charges and certainly credit card rates are not going down. It was in April that the previous minister of finance negotiated with the banks to reduce.

Five out of the six big banks experienced higher than expected profits in the third quarter. Will the minister work with the banks and get them to cut their interest rates in half and help Canadians?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her as usual very thoughtful question and for her tremendous care for the lives and struggles of Canadians. The issues she raises both about mortgage deferrals and about credit cards are very good ones and this is something that we are monitoring and looking at as we enter the second wave of the pandemic.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, my next set of questions relates to the tourism sector in particular.

For many of my constituents, rent is not the problem. The tourism industry has fixed moorage costs, which are a lot like rent, and Bill C-9 does not help them.

Would the minister be willing to look at flexibility and realize that, for some businesses, their moorage is their rent?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is absolutely right. One of the sectors that has been hit significantly is the tourism sector. We acknowledge that, which is why we have been very clear about our support for the sector. This sector employs over 550,000 Canadians, and over the past few years, the Government of Canada has contributed $460 million to it to make sure that we support it. We put in measures through the regional development agencies to provide additional support to help deal with some of the costs raised by the member opposite.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I do realize that the Government of Canada has put money into the tourism sector, but it is insufficient.

I will raise a specific example. One of the iconic tourism attractions in all of Canada is in my riding. It is the Butchart Gardens. The wage subsidy did not help it. The Butchart Gardens could not bring hundreds of people back to work this season because there were no tourists, and the rent program does not help it.

What we really need is the kind of program aimed at the regional development offices. We had a tiny dribble of this, but we need a lot, in buckets. Businesses that are falling through the cracks can go there to apply for assistance.

Is additional money being considered for the tourism sector through our regional economic offices?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I very much agree with the member that, in this crisis, the RDAs have played an essential role. As we have heard from a lot of members tonight, we have put in broad-based programs that have, by their nature, helped a lot of people, literally millions of Canadians and hundreds of thousands of businesses. That is great, but a broad-based program cannot cover every single specific circumstance, and that is where the RDAs have been so important.

I agree with the member opposite on the very important role that the RDAs have played so far in this crisis. We are in a second wave now—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go back to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a very short and very specific question. The hon. minister may not have noticed an email I sent her earlier today.

One of the charities in my riding, a land conservancy, has a lot of revenue but it is tied to only buying land. It cannot use it for wage subsidies, and now it does not qualify for the wage subsidy.

Can there be flexibility?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I saw that the member had sent me an email, but to be perfectly honest, I had not had time to open it. I promise to read it when this evening is complete, and to look into the issue carefully.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by acknowledging that for so many businesses in northwest B.C., the wage subsidy and the CEBA loans have been keeping them afloat. That is why I will be pleased to be supporting the legislation before us.

My question to the Minister of Finance is about a specific category of businesses that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned. In northwest B.C., there are a lot of small tourism operators who have not just lost a percentage of their revenue for the year, but because they depend wholly on international clients, many from the United States, they have lost their entire season.

I was speaking last night with Gill McKean who owns Westcoast Fishing Adventures with his wife, Mandi. They have lost their entire season.

Is the minister considering targeted support of a magnitude that is going to be able to keep businesses like Gill and Mandi's afloat?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member opposite for his support for these measures.

As I think we have all agreed, the economy and businesses need broad-based support. We also need to look at whether there are businesses with specific needs. With our lockdown support, we have provided specific support to businesses subject to additional lockdown restrictions.

I agree with the member opposite that we need to recognize that there are businesses that are particularly vulnerable to our necessary border restrictions and quarantine requirements. That is a form of health measure, too. I think we need to think about how we identify those businesses, and how we provide them with the particular support they need.

I would like to acknowledge that the seasonality that the member opposite referred to is another very important consideration.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, my next question relates to the emergency wage subsidy. The initial iteration of the program was complex enough that there were small businesses that struggled with the application process.

The new iteration, this latest iteration that we are debating tonight, is infinitely more complex. How are very small businesses, owner-operator businesses, going to apply for this program when they do not have teams of lawyers and consultants helping them? They are trying to run their businesses. Service Canada offices are still closed in the region I represent.

What is the minister's message to them?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is an excellent question and something I have wrestled with, too. In putting together both the wage subsidy and the rent subsidy programs, we have tried to balance two things. One is to make it as easy as possible for businesses to get access to this support, but the other is to have a smooth curve of support, so that businesses that need the most get the most. If a business has a 70% revenue decline or more, it gets 65% support, but it does not just drop off. We do not want to create a perverse disincentive. In order to have that smooth curve, which we have achieved, there is a little complexity. I am hopeful that when people actually start applying for the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go back to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think, especially with the Service Canada offices still closed in northwest B.C. in some communities, the complexity of the program is of particular concern.

My next question is around the emergency wage subsidy. It has been successful at helping businesses retain their remaining employees who are working for them, but it has not been so successful at allowing them to rehire the ones that they laid off.

Does your government have a plan to increase the number of employees who have been laid off being rehired under these programs and re-employed?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do think, and it is not just my thought, the data shows that Canadians have been going back to work, and we have now recovered 76% of the jobs lost in the depths of the pandemic. I will also say that I think we are going to be operating under some restrictions to our economic activity until we can really vanquish the virus, so we need to have support measures in place until then. That will be the moment for the economy to come roaring back, which I know we are all going to work hard to facilitate.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, we all acknowledge the first iteration of the commercial rent assistance program was flawed. There were businesses that qualified for the flawed program and received those benefits, and there were businesses whose landlords did not want to play ball and did not get them. What do you say to those businesses that are not able to get retroactive support back to April and that are faced with this profoundly unfair situation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the response, I will give a reminder to hon. members that we are keeping the debate rules, as we do in the House and in committees of the whole, to direct questions through the chair, kind of in the third person.

It is not a big issue, it is just a reminder.

The hon. minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it was very kindly meant.

I think that is a very legitimate concern, and what I would say to those businesses is two things. One, we are focused on the future, and two, we have a lot of support for them in the future. They can get up to 90% of their rent paid. That is a lot. They can also get up to 65% of their wages paid. That is also a lot, and they can get another tranche of CEBA, another $20,000, $10,000 of which is forgivable. That is a lot of support.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance about specifics this evening.

I would like to know whether she plans to use her regulatory power to address the gaps. I have one specific example from my riding, about an outfitting operation that experienced serious flooding in 2019 and therefore did not have any revenue. The owner managed to keep the business going. Then came 2020. Since this company did not have any revenue in 2019, it was not eligible for the wage subsidy.

Is there something in Bill C-9 that would address these terrible gaps?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his excellent question, to which I have two answers.

First, yes, there will inevitably be gaps. A country-wide program cannot account for every possible situation. I would be very happy to discuss this very specific example with the member.

Second, Canada's regional development agencies are there to help businesses that fall into these gaps.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, I will be pleased to speak with the minister about it.

However, this case was brought to her attention via email on September 23, and all I received was an acknowledgement of receipt. I resubmitted it on October 20 and still have not received anything.

At the same time, I submitted the case to the Minister of Economic Development, who got back to me rather quickly. However, her officials merely explained to the owner of the outfitting business that the programs could not be adapted to every individual because that would be impossible. He was offered a loan, when what the business needed was breathing room in the form of money. I could resend the email, but I hope we will find solutions.

Here is another case, this time involving an inn in the woods. It used the wage subsidy program in the spring, but it did not need the program in the summer because its campground gave it some breathing room. Now it really needs that program. However, according to the calculations and the new criteria, the inn would receive just one wage subsidy of 18%. Is that possible? The bill talks about 65%, and I would like the minister to elaborate on that.

The inn operators wanted me to know that the inn was closed in April. Next April, they will not be able to declare income for the previous year, so they will end up in the same boat as the outfitters. I hope we will be able to fill these gaps.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his question.

I want to begin by saying that, in some ways, this example illustrates just how well the Canada emergency wage subsidy works and how it is targeted properly. It is there for businesses that need it. When the economy is doing better for these companies, as was the case for that inn this summer, they do not need the wage subsidy. Then they can apply for it again later. That was a very good example.

It is hard for me to comment on that specific case without knowing the exact details of the situation. Once again, I would be pleased to discuss it with the member or to have my team speak with his.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay, we will talk, Madam Chair.

Basically, what these businesses are telling me is that they are currently struggling and that they are unable to maintain a connection with their employees. Is not the purpose of the wage subsidy to maintain that connection?

I would like to know whether the minister has anything planned for the tourism industry, particularly sugar shacks and other such businesses that are not covered by any program. They are facing uncertainty and are worried about having to close their doors.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, we have already spoken about the tourism industry several times this evening. I agree.

As with the restaurant industry, which is subject to new lockdown measures and whose employees cannot work, the quarantine and border restrictions are limiting what the tourism industry—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like the Minister of Finance to share her thoughts about businesses that are not entitled to the subsidies.

Does she not feel uncomfortable about the fact that her party used the wage subsidy? Does she not feel that her party should, in good faith, acknowledge its poor choice and give that money back to taxpayers?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I will continue with my response about the tourism sector. I just wanted to say that the situation facing all businesses that depend on our borders and on travellers was unique. The quarantine measures and border restrictions really hit those businesses—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, time is up.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, does the minister view Parliament as an essential service?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, I imagine I am the minister referred to, because there are a few of us here. I would certainly say that I am glad to be here answering questions tonight.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I did not think that would be that tough a question, but I should not have been that surprised because in answering questions, or not answering questions, the minister has repeatedly reflected on her days negotiating trade agreements. I would remind the minister or maybe ask the minister if she sees the role that she would play negotiating an agreement with a foreign government as identical to being accountable to the Canadian people in their elected Parliament.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, what I do see as identical is my accountability to members of the House and to Canadians in all of the roles that I have been privileged to serve in this government.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I hope that we can get an answer to the question. It has been asked a couple of times.

What would be the impact of a 1% increase on interest rates to the federal debt?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, the really important thing to emphasize for Canadians when talking about the interest charges on our debt is this actually rather startling fact, which is today the interest charges on our debt—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, does the hon. member know what interest rate the Bank of Canada overnight rate was in August of 1971?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, one thing I pointed out in my speech last week was the way in which interest rates and the relationship between interest rates and growth have changed over the past decades.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, it was 5% in August 1971.

Does the hon. member know what the Bank of Canada overnight rate was in August of 1976?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as I said, interest rates have varied over the past century. One very important fact was that only in the eighties and the nineties—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, the interest rate in 1976 was 9.25%.

Does the hon. member know what the Bank of Canada rate was in August 1981?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, what I would like the hon. member to reflect on is that only in the eighties and the nineties did the interest rate exceed the rate of growth. That is a fundamental—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, the Bank of Canada's overnight rate in August of 1981 was 20.78%.

Does the hon. minister understand the relevance of asking questions about what projected interest rates might be, given her government is taking on over $400 billion in new debt this year alone?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I very much understand the relevance of history and the way in which Canada's very traumatic experience of debt in the 1990s is shaping the current debate. That is why I addressed that very directly in my speech—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, does the hon. member know how much the Chrétien-Martin Liberal government cut in transfers to the provinces for health care, social services and education in the late nineties because of the debt the Pierre Trudeau government ran up?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I am really glad to have the member opposite ask questions about that because I think it is so important for us as a country to remember the lessons of the 1990s and to appreciate—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, the amount was $35 billion cut from transfers for health care, social services and education in the late nineties.

I am going to use my time to comment right now rather than question. As a parent of a 25-year old with autism, I care about not only what services are available for him now, but what services are going to be available for him two generations from now when we are no longer here to support him and look after him.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I am going to quote a Financial Post writer who observed that for sure debt is a concern when it comes to our future generations, but saddling them with a weaker economy than it needs to be is an even greater concern. That is—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, on April 24, 2020, the Prime Minister announced the Canada emergency rent benefit for qualifying commercial property owners and small business tenants. Within weeks there were multiple issues that arose and we were all contacted by our constituents. It has now been six months and the government has finally changed the program. What took so long?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, I am really pleased that in all the questions we have been receiving tonight, there seems to be a unanimous view that the new rent subsidy program we are debating is a good program that will support our businesses in the future.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, the rent program ended in September and nothing is yet in place. What is the advice from the minister to these businesses that are now closing and getting foreclosure notices?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, that is precisely why the new rent program we are debating tonight is retroactive to September 27.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, what is the minister's advice to the banks that are pulling these loans during COVID—19 and increasing interest rates on these companies?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe that it is the responsibility of banks, landlords and all of us to be supporting the Canadian businesses—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, this is all fine and well, but in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I was contacted by a trampoline park owner. They are about to close three more trampoline parks. They have already closed four in Canada: one in Moncton, one in Winnipeg and two in Quebec. These are huge industries and this place alone has over 200 employees.

This is this business owner's family. His life savings have been invested in this. Prior to going into COVID-19, it was extremely successful. Each and every one of them was extremely successful, but if people cannot do business, they cannot pay the rent. For many months, they were not able to get support from the government. They have received notice from their bank that they are being foreclosed on.

What is the advice when 200 jobs are going to be lost and an additional three businesses are closing?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, without knowing the precise details of the enterprise, I cannot give precise guidance, but I would say this. If we can get this legislation passed with alacrity, which I really hope we can, then Canadian businesses will be able to get up to—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The minister was cut off and there was still time left. I want to make sure the time is even. The member may want to be recognized before she stands again because the mike was turned off. I will allow a couple more seconds for the minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, businesses can get up to 90% of rent covered, up to 65% of wages covered, plus a CEBA loan of $60,000, $20,000 of it forgivable.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, it is truly too late. I am looking at this business. There are 200 employees and people's life savings are gone down the system and all because we have an overwhelming problem with this pandemic, but the government was not there to help them in the beginning.

What do we tell 200 people and people who are losing their businesses today, not what we are going to be doing in two months but today, who went into this financially fine and had over $800,000 in the bank? We can say that we do not know all of this, but they had $800,000 in the bank and now they are way below that.

What are we telling these businesses that were successful and are no longer in business?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, the first thing I would say is this is not about support two months from now. This is about support really quickly.

The second thing I would say specifically to the Conservatives is that it is time for them to choose a lane. They need to decide whether they think we need to be offering meaningful support to Canadian businesses, as the questions I am getting now suggest, or whether their preoccupation is with debt and deficits. Pick a lane.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, my lane is with Canadian businesses and I hope that the government will also do so. It is not about WE Charity. It is not about people like Mr. Silver and all of those things. It is about Canadian businesses and people losing their jobs across Canada. It is not about the friends and relatives of the Prime Minister. It is not about the friends of the Liberal government.

This said, I would like to know what I should tell the residents in Elgin—Middlesex—London, who know nobody because they are just average Canadians, who are losing their businesses today? What do I tell them when the government is saying we are here already? This program was already gone a month ago, so Liberals are late to the ball game. I am wondering what we tell businesses that are going out of business because the government has not been there.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I would tell them that it is not about what interest rates were in the 1990s, which seems to be the obsession of the member's caucus colleague. I would urge the members on the Conservative benches to really reflect on what they care about. Is it supporting Canadian businesses or is it debt?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, the wage subsidy bill this past spring did not list political parties.

A number of parties, including the Liberal Party, chose to give it a shot, and the Canada Revenue Agency chose to pay. However, the wage subsidy is meant to help businesses offset the loss in revenue as a result of the crisis. It is not meant to line the pockets of a political party that has raised nearly $9 million so far this year.

Does the government think that the taxes and collective debt of Quebeckers and Canadians should be funding millionaire political parties like the Liberal Party?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.

The wage subsidy is designed to help employers protect the jobs that Canadians depend on and to rehire workers who have already been laid off. This support applies to employers of all sizes in all sectors, including not-for-profit organizations that have been hit hard by COVID-19.

To date, more than 3.8 million employees across the country are being supported by the wage subsidy. It is an important program—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, sometimes it is easier to not answer the question.

We proposed an amendment to the bill to exclude political parties from applying for the subsidy. Does the government support this principle?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as I said, this program was created to help a large number of businesses and organizations across the country.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, will the government support our amendment?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as I said, the purpose of the program is to help many businesses.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, will the Liberal Party commit to paying back all the money it received through the wage subsidy?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I might add that the Liberal Party stopped accepting the wage subsidy at the end of August.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, that is a step in the right direction. We will see what happens next.

Does the government think it displayed exemplary behaviour and the highest ethical standards by taking more than $1.2 million from the wage subsidy from March to August, when it has raised nearly $9 million in political contributions so far this year?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member once again for the question.

I know the member is very familiar with the wage subsidy program. As I have already explained, this program was created to help many businesses and organizations in Canada.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, the original bill did not list political parties.

When there were discussions with the former finance minister and his staff, and when we met in committee of the whole in this place, there was never any question of political parties being eligible. In my view, that does not reflect the spirit of the bill.

Yes, community-based organizations should be eligible. However, is the Liberal Party, which has raised $9 million so far this year—and the year is not even over—a community organization, or is it a political party, a money-making machine, a machine that awards contracts to its friends? That is what we have seen in recent months.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.

I know that the member is very familiar with the wage subsidy and that he knows that this program was created for all of Canada, for all businesses, big or small, and for not-for-profit organizations. That was the purpose of the program, that is what the program did and that is what it will continue to do.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, they received $1.2 million in wage subsidies, which enabled them to raise $9 million.

Ultimately, this $1.2 million will be used for the next election campaign. When this money is spent, the Liberal Party will get a 50% refund, or $600,000. Thus, the Liberal Party will receive $2 million thanks to the Canada emergency wage subsidy, even though it is a millionaire party that does not need this money.

Does the government agree with this practice, or does it have any regrets?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I have no regrets about the wage subsidy. It is an excellent program that has helped many Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, I know the minister knows my riding well. Too many businesses in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona were locked out of the rent subsidy program because their landlords refused to apply. Some of them have gone out of business as a result, but others are still hanging on by a thread.

Will you allow those businesses still hanging on to apply to recover the rent subsidy funds that they were denied under the CECRA program?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she is to address questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, I did go to high school in the excellent riding of Edmonton Strathcona.

We absolutely know that there are businesses across the country that need support. That is why we are discussing tonight strong programs to support Canadian businesses, rent support of up to 90% if a business is subject to local lockdown.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, will she make it retroactive until April?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as the member opposite knows, the program is retroactive to September 27. It is a good question, but our focus is on tomorrow.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, will companies that have locked out their workers be able to access the wage subsidy? Would you consider changing the criteria to ensure the program is not enabling employers to pay for replacement labour?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Would she.

The hon. minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, the wage subsidy is organized to help as many people keep their job as possible, but it is a very important issue to look into and to think about.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, if company owners refuse to use the emergency wage subsidy but apply for the LEEFF loan, will they be able to access the LEEFF loan?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, there are a lot of conditions for the LEEFF loan. Each situation is specific. A tiger team works very hard for—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, among the LEEFF eligibility requirements, why did the minister not require the company to use the wage subsidy?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, the LEEFF conditions are very strict, as they ought to be. They include environmental criteria. They include restrictions on executive pay. They—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, if a company wants to cut jobs and not use the wage subsidy to keep these jobs, then why will the minister help it through the LEEFF program?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, the LEEFF program involves very careful scrutiny before companies—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, not every business made it through the summer. What will the government do to help relaunch businesses that may have shut down due to the Liberals' poorly designed rent subsidy program?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, that is an excellent question. We need to focus today on fighting COVID and getting through the COVID winter. Then once COVID is conquered, that will be the time for a program of government investment for jobs and growth.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, the second wave of COVID-19 is hitting Alberta harder than the first wave and some restaurants and bars that were hit hard over the spring and summer were able to use the patio season to mitigate their losses. We have snow and freezing rain in Edmonton today, yet the wage subsidy is now reduced to 65%. That 10% may be the difference.

Why has the government reduced the amount of the wage subsidy right when it is needed the most in Alberta?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I really share the member opposite's concerns about the COVID situation in Alberta and particularly in Edmonton. I have been in touch with Don Iveson about it. It is something on which we all really need to focus. Edmonton and Edmontonians really have our government's support in this fight against COVID.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, we are deep into the second wave of the pandemic in Alberta. Small businesses in the retail, hospitality, arts and entertainment sectors that rely on the December holiday revenues will not survive unless they get support immediately. The wage subsidy helps, but only if they can stay open.

Again, I would like to ask the minister if she can comment a bit about the immediate supports these sectors will be able to access in addition to the wage and the rent subsidies.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance has been clear that we have taken an approach with respect to broad-based support. Through the regional development agencies, we have contributed $1.5 billion to assist in unique situations for sectors that have been challenged, like tourism and the restaurant sector.

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

Madam Chair, I am supporting Bill C-9, and my chamber is very happy that Bill C-9 is going forward because its members said the other programs sucked, except for western economic diversification funding through Community Futures.

Would you agree with the following statement: “There is no public document published which provides a complete list of measures announced and with their cost estimates related to COVID-19 expenditures”?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member to address the question to the Chair.

The hon. minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank the member opposite for his support and the support of his chamber for these programs. I think what we will have in place once we get this passed into law is a comprehensive set of supports for workers and for businesses that will get us through together until next summer. That is a really big deal. I can think of no other country in the world that will have such comprehensive—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

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

Do you agree with the following statement: “There is no public document published which provides a complete list of measures announced and with their cost estimates as it relates to COVID-19 spending“?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the minister.

The hon. minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you for bringing in a note of levity to our late-night debates. I am just going to finish my sentence from the last answer, because it is really important. We are now going to do something very special with this legislation. We are going to have targeted mutually reinforcing programs that go up and down as the economy needs it with—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

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

Madam Chair, the government's central financial management and reporting system is meant to be updated monthly with actual spending data. The government has created several codes in its charts of accounts to track COVID spending. Why has it not been updated since July?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, our government is very available to answer questions. Here we are late into the evening, and I think we are all actually glad to be here and to be having this discussion. I have also—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

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

Madam Chair, I think the finance minister needs to pick a lane, a lane of transparency, accountability and a team Canada approach or one that denies Canadians the access to information on our public expenditures.

Bill C-11, Bill C-12, Bill C-13, Bill C-14, Bill C-15, Bill C-16, Bill C-18, Bill C-19, Bill C-20 and Bill C-4; the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we do not have public information on all of those bills passed and that received royal assent.

Does the member opposite agree that Canadians deserve to have that information?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Chair, the finance minister has obviously picked a lane, which is full transparency, and full engagement and support of businesses and workers across Canada. We are delighted to have this opportunity, as well as the government portal info base and the open government portal, which provides hundreds of different files on COVID-19. The member is obviously most welcome to consult those files with hundreds of pages of detailed information, including on government estimates and the budgetary estimates process. There is a lot of information to support this very important discussion. We are very proud of the lane the finance minister chose.

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

Madam Chair, will the finance minister give Canada a budget in 2021?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I know everyone is really looking forward to it because we have heard a lot about it tonight. We have said we will provide an update later this year.

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

Madam Chair, will the finance minister table special legislation to grant the money required for the Auditor General to do her job?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as we have heard from the Secretary of the Treasury Board, we strongly support the work of the Auditor General and we believe the Auditor General does need the—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

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

Madam Chair, will we receive a budget in 2021?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as I said, I am really thrilled everyone here is waiting with bated breath. The fall fiscal—

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

Madam Chair, does—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, the time is up.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, I have spoken to my chamber of commerce, as well. We have a chartered bus line in my constituency that is owned and operated locally. It has zero revenue and has had nothing since the beginning of the pandemic with no foreseeable future of having any revenue either. They have applied for just about everything they can and they have received some funds, but with no revenue, it is not enough. We have had eight months of COVID and six weeks of prorogation to get the plans right. Why are small businesses like this chartered bus line still falling through the cracks and there is nothing in this legislation to help them?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, since we talked about this when it came to Edmonton, I would like to start by saying how much all of us in this House are thinking of the people of Manitoba as they fight a very powerful resurgence of COVID. We are here for Manitoba. I do want to point out that the additional lockdown support we are talking about tonight could be of particular—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, the provincial exhibition in Manitoba, as well, survives on three major events that it puts on in a year: the winter fair in March, cancelled; the summer fair in June, cancelled; and the Manitoba agricultural exhibition in October, cancelled.

The provincial exhibition in Manitoba has been in existence since 1882. I think it has been cancelled twice, way back in the First World War and now. Without these events, the provincial exhibition is in dire straits, like the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions.

Why is there no additional assistance contained in this legislation for non-profit organizations like the provincial exhibition in Manitoba?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Chair, many people have reminded us this evening that Manitoba is good. We are very proud to support Manitobans during these difficult times.

I also want to take this opportunity to underscore the fact that we, as a government, have invested $500 million for cultural, heritage and sport organizations throughout this pandemic to deal with these types of circumstances, in order to support them. We have done so in the past, and we will continue to support these types of initiatives and organizations across the country, but particularly in Manitoba.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, I have given examples of how the government has not helped.

I will give another one. Camps across Canada are closed this year, and they do not have any opportunities. All their bookings are cancelled. There is no expectation that this will not continue in 2021.

Above and beyond the programs already announced, why is there still nothing in this legislation specific to children's camps that are teetering on the edge of financial catastrophe?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Chair, again, I understand the frustration and the concerns. These stories from Manitoba are similar to stories that we are hearing across the country. That is why I just highlighted the fact that we have invested $500 million to support such initiatives.

We have also indicated $1.5 billion worth of support through the regional development agencies as well. We have invested in such initiatives in the past and will continue to do so going forward.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether the changes to the Canada emergency wage subsidy were provided to her in her mandate letter?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, the changes in the emergency wage subsidy, which we are talking about tonight, were first promised in the Speech from the Throne, and that it would go through to the summer. That is a commitment that I am delighted we are keeping.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, were the changes to the Canada emergency rent subsidy contained in the minister's mandate letter?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I think that we all agree that the new Canada rent subsidy is a really good program that is going to support a lot of Canadian businesses. I am proud that we are discussing it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, it looks like she is like the Minister of Public Safety who did not get a mandate letter, even though he was at committee.

Would the Minister of Finance table her mandate letter?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, we are talking about some really important legislation. The sound and fury of the past two hours may obscure the fact that we all agree this is legislation—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member, very brief.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, let me be clear. Could she table her mandate letter?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, what I can table is great legislation to keep our businesses going through the second wave.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, I have not had the opportunity, but I would like to congratulate the minister on being the first female finance minister. I would also note that in tonight's debate we are being led by a female Speaker and a Conservative deputy House leader who is a woman. Given the impact that the pandemic has had on women, that is great and it is fitting.

I will move on to my question. We have seen through these programs that some audits are causing undue burden to Canadian business owners who are just trying to get through. Will the minister commit to pausing those audits?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, this coronavirus pandemic has given me a renewed appreciation of the hard work and the value of CRA. This is the agency that has been able to deliver support to literally millions of Canadians. I am grateful to the people—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, is that a yes or a no?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, as I said, the CRA is doing really—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, yes or no, will the minister commit to pausing the audits on small business owners?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Chair, the Canada Revenue Agency is an independent agency, and much like our government respects the political independence of the RCMP, we also respect the independence of the CRA. I know that my Conservative colleague—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, the interpretation was not working, and I am expecting my time to reflect that.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member can go ahead with his questions.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, will the government direct the CRA to pause auditing on the rent subsidy and wage subsidy?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Chair, the Canada Revenue Agency is an independent agency, and much like our government respects the political independence of the RCMP, we also respect the independence of the CRA.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I am not sure if there is an issue with maybe someone leaving their mike on, but we seem to have lost the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, I am here, and I have a follow-up question.

Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Minister of National Revenue or the Prime Minister to direct the CRA.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Chair, I know that my Conservative colleagues had no problem politically interfering in CRA matters when they were in power, but we will never follow their example.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, when the Prime Minister tweeted out publicly, stopping the CRA from taxing employee discounts, and the minister also said it publicly, it stopped that very day. That was inappropriate. Will they join me now in condemning their actions?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Chair, the Canada Revenue Agency is an independent agency.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, again, they are admitting that their actions in 2017, when they directed the CRA to stop taxing employee discounts, was incorrect, inappropriate and perhaps unethical.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Chair, our government respects the independence of the CRA, and we will never do what the Conservatives did. They had no problem politically interfering in CRA matters.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair, I think that speaks for itself.

I will go back to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance aware of what forecasting is? Because forecasting financials is critical. That is called hypotheticals. It is not part of her job; it is her job.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I certainly am and when it comes to offering forecasts, we were clear in the Speech from the Throne about that.