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.