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.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I think never has the House leader of the official opposition spoken truer words than when, in referring to the Conservative Party, he talked about the decline of the democracy.

We have now seen over the past six months, ever since we passed unanimously the ban on conversion therapy and there was a revolt in the Conservative backbench, that Conservatives have blocked every single piece of legislation. In Bill C-9, teachers and farmers were looking for supports and Conservatives refused to let it through. They are now blocking Bill C-14.

The reality is as we saw it last night. The House leader of the official opposition referred to vigorous debate. What Conservatives wanted us to debate, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars last night, for hour after hour, was which Conservative MP would speak. We had vote—

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4, which was adopted in October 2020, created three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. Bill C-9 put in place new targeted supports to help businesses through the pandemic with the emergency rent and wage subsidies. Bill C-12 charted a course for clean growth for generations to come by legislating net-zero emissions by 2050. This is essential to avoid the worst impact of climate change, some of which we have seen in British Columbia, and fully seize the economic opportunities that it presents.

There are concerns that private members' bills may not make their way through the House. The reality is that, in the second session, these were in no way impeded by the hybrid process. There were 46 recorded divisions taken on private members' bills and motions. Six received royal assent, and six of the motions were adopted. Of the private members' bills that were passed, five of the bills were introduced by Conservative members and one by a Bloc Québécois member.

These are just a few examples of bills the House passed by working together, but in a physically distanced way. A total of 28 votes took place on opposition day motions. Of the 24 motions they debated, 16 were adopted. As members are aware, House committees also met in a hybrid format during the second session of the 43rd Parliament. The motion before us today would allow this to continue in the 44th Parliament.

Standing committees also played their important accountability function in our system of responsible government by reviewing government bills and estimates and issuing reports on government policy and actions. All of these functions were carried out in a hybrid format, and would be again under the proposed motion.

There are those who argue that conducting parliamentary business using video conference is too impersonal and that the cut and thrust of good debate is lost. I understand these concerns, particularly as a new MP. However, the reality is that COVID-19 is spreading in our communities, and too many people are still being hospitalized. Case counts are not going down.

Members of Parliament must lead by example. We have the means to be flexible and safe in how we conduct our business, and I believe it behooves us to use them. Technology is not perfect, and there is nothing that replaces in-person engagement, but these are extraordinary times, and we must find ways to adapt and to reflect the realities that we face today. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would limit members' ability to participate in any parliamentary proceedings, and it would in no way infringe on their privilege.

In fact, this motion would facilitate greater participation in the face of ongoing public health restrictions. Members can imagine a scenario where a member has to isolate at home because of potential exposure to COVID-19. In a hybrid model, that member could still participate in House proceedings.

Canadians did not send us to this place to debate our needs as members of Parliament, and they certainly did not elect us to potentially contract and/or transmit COVID-19 in our home communities. They elected us to address the issues that matter most to them and their families, and the government has an agenda to do just that. I am hoping that all members in the House will work together to pass, before the winter adjournment, the crucial legislation the government has forthcoming.

While Canada has the enviable position of having recovered jobs to a level higher than that at the beginning of the pandemic, there are still sectors that are adversely affected by the pandemic and need support, and the government is bringing forward legislation to provide targeted support to the tourism and hospitality sectors and other hard-hit businesses.

Particularly during a global health crisis, it is vital that federally regulated workers have access to 10 paid sick days, so they do not have to make the difficult choice of whether they should go to work sick or not pay their bills. Frontline workers, many of whom live in Vancouver Granville, always deserve our greatest gratitude, especially during a pandemic. This is why it is so disappointing that there are those who are harassing and threatening frontline workers at their places of work. The government will legislate protections for these vital workers and their facilities.

We are so close to finishing this fight against COVID-19. Indeed, this very week we have further reason to be optimistic. Thanks to the government's efforts, vaccines for children aged five to 11 are arriving across this country. As much as we all want to be done with this pandemic, we now have over a year and a half of experience working within it, and we can draw on this experience during the 44th Parliament.

The second session of the 43rd Parliament showed us that a hybrid Parliament, with members participating in person and online, can produce real results for Canadians. It is the safe and responsible thing to do to keep using this flexible approach. For those of us who were not here, we watched with awe as the House functioned remotely.

I encourage all members to join me in supporting this motion.

Resuming Debate on the Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.

Since this is the first time that I am standing in the House in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank my constituents of Ottawa West—Nepean for putting their faith, confidence and trust in me once again as their member of Parliament.

I would also like to thank my family, especially my husband Don, my stepdaughter Courtney and my mom Maria, for always being there and supporting me throughout, as well as my volunteers and supporters.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on the government's motion to implement a hybrid sitting approach. The motion is proposing that we adapt our procedures and practices so that all members can fully participate in the proceedings of the House either in the chamber or by video conference. It is an important motion. The pandemic is ongoing and we require the flexibility that a hybrid system would provide.

I would like to paint a complete picture of the government motion.

First, the motion would allow all members to participate in the proceedings of the House in person or by video conference. The members who would attend in person would have to be double-vaccinated or have a valid medical exemption in accordance with the Board of Internal Economy's decision of October 19, 2021.

The motion also proposes certain changes to the Standing Orders of the House to take into account the virtual participation of members. For instance, members who participate remotely would be counted for quorum purposes. All standing orders relating to such requirements as standing when speaking, or being in one's seat in the House, would be amended to allow for participation by video conference.

The motion would also allow documents to be tabled or presented to the House in electronic format. For instance, members participating by video conference could table documents or present petitions or reports to the House in electronic format during Routine Proceedings. However, the documents would have to be forwarded to the Clerk prior to the members' intervention.

With respect to committees, the motion would allow members to participate in committee meetings remotely or in person on the condition that they meet the vaccine requirements set out by the Board of Internal Economy.

The motion proposes a process for recorded divisions in hybrid proceedings. The motion would bring the remote voting application back into use. This application was used successfully for over 120 votes in the second session of the 43rd Parliament. The remote voting application would also allow members to cast their votes safely, securely and conveniently. However, the motion takes a cautious approach. It would direct House administration to carry out an onboarding process of all members, which would be completed no later than December 8, 2021. The remote voting application would be put into use no later than December 9.

Until the remote voting application was implemented, members of the chamber would continue to vote by standing votes, and members participating remotely would be called one by one to cast their votes. The motion proposes measures to ensure the integrity of the remote voting application. Votes would need to be cast from within Canada using a House-managed device. A member's visual identity would need to be validated for each vote. Any member unable to vote because of technical issues would be able to connect to the virtual sitting to indicate their voting intention.

Lastly, the motion also proposes a process for the supplementary estimates (B) for the current fiscal year.

The motion provides that, on a day appointed by a minister of the Crown, consideration of the supplementary estimates shall be taken up by a committee of the whole at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. At the conclusion of the four hours allotted for consideration, the committee shall rise, and the estimates shall be deemed reported. This is the approach that was used at the beginning of the last parliamentary session because the composition of the standing committees had yet to be established.

It is important to note that the motion states that this method of operation would be in effect until June 23, 2022, the last day on the sitting calendar before the summer break.

The government is proposing a reasonable and pragmatic approach to ensure that members are able to participate in House proceedings while respecting public health guidance. This motion supports the fundamental role of members of the House.

The government has always recognized our essential role in representing our constituents and holding the government to account. The government has supported members in fulfilling this role since it came to power. The government has promoted free votes for members of the governing caucus and established the Prime Minister's question period. When the House was adjourned at the beginning of the pandemic, the government sought ways for members to fulfill their roles.

The former government House leader wrote to the Speaker to ask whether House administration would be able to implement virtual sittings. This is because the government wanted to ensure that the House could continue to hold the government to account during the pandemic. The House passed government motions in April and May 2020 to instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study how members could fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House was adjourned during the pandemic.

The committee undertook two thoughtful studies on this issue. In its second report, the committee recommended a detailed set of standing order amendments that would codify procedure for hybrid sittings and remote electronic voting. The committee also proposed guidance for the development, testing and implementation of a remote electronic voting application. The committee's reports provided valuable guidance to the House and to House administration in implementing a hybrid sitting approach in September 2020.

I want to stress this point. The motion does not propose anything new. During the last Parliament, in the face of an unprecedented public health crisis, the House adopted creative and innovative ways to debate, transact business and make decisions using a hybrid approach. From September 2020 to June 2021, the House sat with members in the chamber and members participating remotely. All regular business of the House was conducted, including consideration of government legislation and private members' business.

During this time, 19 government bills received royal assent. This legislation has a real impact on the lives of Canadians. For example, Bill C-4 created three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who were unable to work because of COVID-19. Bill C-9 put in place targeted support to help businesses with emergency rent and wage subsidies. I hope members will come together to support the important economic measures that the government is proposing in Bill C-2 to address the current phase of the pandemic.

Regarding private members' business, six private members' bills received royal assent and six private members' motions were adopted during hybrid sittings. This success shows that it is possible to consider legislation and other important matters in a hybrid approach.

A hybrid parliament would also allow for better work-life balance, especially for members with young children. During the debates on the Standing Orders and House procedure in February 2021, several members from different parties mentioned the importance of work-life balance. Several members also noted that the hybrid Parliament and electronic voting made it easier for them to juggle their various responsibilities during the 43rd Parliament. Allowing members to choose whether to take part in House proceedings in person or remotely would make it easier for them to balance their responsibilities at home and at work.

I certainly hope that all members of the House will pass this reasonable motion so that we can do our work in a safe way for our constituents.

Employment Insurance Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a great day to be debating in the House of Commons. Before I begin, I want to give a big shout-out. I have been in Ottawa for a while, and I think all House of Commons staff are doing an excellent job of keeping us fed and making sure that our system works for the well-being of Canadians. I really felt that this week. They are doing a great job.

Now I will get to Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 would increase the maximum number of weeks available to workers through EI, with up to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims established between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. It would also change rules for self-employed workers who have opted into the EI program to access special benefits. This legislation would allow them to use their 2020 earning threshold of $5,000, compared with the previous threshold of $7,555. Also, it would fix the Liberal-caused loophole in the Canada recovery sickness benefit for international leisure travellers.

The Conservative Party is supportive of Bill C-24. These changes are necessary and long overdue. We must get help to Canadians in need whose jobs have been eliminated as a result of the government-mandated restrictions and closures in response to the pandemic. Lockdowns are still in place in many parts of the country, and businesses cannot get back to normal even though they are working incredibly hard to do so.

My constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon are frustrated. They cannot go to church. They cannot earn an income the way they want to. They cannot live their lives the way they want to either.

The Conservatives' track record in this Parliament is strong. We have been behind pandemic assistance for Canadians throughout the entire COVID-19 period. We supported Bill C-13 one year ago, in March 2020. It brought in the Canada emergency wage subsidy for small businesses, a one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit, temporary additional amounts to the Canada child benefit, a 25% reduction in required minimal withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, and the Canada emergency response benefit.

Last April, we supported Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, which improved the wage subsidy and implemented the Canada emergency student benefit. In July it was Bill C-20, to extend the wage subsidy. In September it was Bill C-4, for a CERB extension, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. In November it was Bill C-9, the emergency rent subsidy and wage subsidy expansion.

The Conservatives have been there to support Canadians every step of the way. What we are not supportive of, though, is the Liberal government's blatant disregard for parliamentary process, their lack of respect for Canadian democracy and their incredibly poor ability to manage the legislative agenda of the House to ensure that we can move past the pandemic.

Two days ago, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, popped into the HUMA committee and table dropped a substantive and constrictive motion for a pre-study of Bill C-24. Neither the text of the motion nor its intention was shared in advance. He ignored the proactive efforts of my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who had reached out to him as soon as Bill C-24 was tabled in the House.

The deadline at the end of the month, which the Liberals are trying to beat, is not some surprise that was sprung on them. To further illustrate that the right hand of the government does not know what the left hand is doing, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to direct the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to pick up the phone and talk to his House leader during committee because the motion he was attempting to ram through was no longer necessary. We had come to an agreement outside of his ham-fisted efforts.

Cross-party collaboration is more than possible. Think of all the time that could have been saved if the parliamentary secretary had attempted to engage himself in that process with committee members.

The Liberals love to complain that the opposition is holding up important legislation, yet here we are, in March 2021, debating necessary updates to legislation from September 2020. The Liberals knew for months that benefits would be expiring, but they failed to act until the last minute. They have repeatedly missed the mark on legislation for emergency supports, leaving thousands of Canadians behind.

A key component of this legislation is addressing the incredibly flawed Canada recovery sickness benefit. Because of the Liberals' disrespect for Parliament and their poor legislative drafting, a loophole was created that allows international leisure travellers to receive the CRSB during their quarantine. This is completely unacceptable. The CRSB is for individuals who must miss work because of COVID-19, not for subsidizing the quarantine period of international leisure travellers. This oversight is a direct result of the government's rushing legislation through Parliament because of its prorogation. It is outrageous that the Liberals waited months to fix their mistake.

If the government tried implementing the transparency it espouses to employ, so much headache would have been avoided. For instance, if the Liberals had tabled a federal budget at the beginning of March, this would have ceased to be an issue entirely. There is even a precedent by the government for including employment insurance updates in federal budget legislation. In 2018, the government proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to implement a number of reforms related to the extension of parental benefits.

We have not seen a federal budget in 723 days. This is the longest period in Canadian history that we have been without one.

Even setting aside our criticisms, we cannot ignore how the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer has repeatedly called out the government for its lack of fiscal transparency. In a PBO report issued on November 4, 2020, on supplementary estimates (B), we found out that the Department of Finance, which under Bill Morneau had been issuing biweekly updates to the finance committee during the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic, stopped providing this information once Parliament was prorogued and Morneau had resigned. We are talking about tens of billions of taxpayer dollars heading out the door under the guise of COVID relief measures, and the government has revealed precious little about where these dollars are going.

From the same November 4 report, the PBO underscored that our role as parliamentarians is being obfuscated and obstructed by the government. As the report notes, “While the sum of these measures is significant”, some $79.2 billion, of which 91.5% was related to COVID spending, “the amount of information that is publicly available to track this spending is lacking, thus making it more challenging for parliamentarians to perform their critical role in overseeing Government spending and holding it to account.”

There is no publicly available list of all federal COVID-19 spending measures. There is no consistency in the reporting on the implementation of these measures. There is less and less information being provided transparently to parliamentarians and the PBO. The government could not do a better job of keeping its finances secret if it provided everyone in the House with blindfolds.

However, to its credit, the government has made some efforts to provide additional financial information. As the PBO noted in its February 24, 2021, report on the supplementary estimates (C), “Notable improvements include a complete list of Bills presented to Parliament to authorize spending for COVID-19 related measures”, which is information anyone could find on LEGISinfo, “and a reconciliation table between the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and the Estimates documents”. Still, as the PBO reminded us in February, “The frequency at which the Government provides an updated list of COVID-19 measures in one central document...and the inconsistency to which actual spending data on COVID-19 measures is made publicly available remain areas of concern”.

These are baby steps, but bigger leaps are needed from the government when it comes to fiscal transparency. We as parliamentarians depend on the government to provide us with accurate and timely information about federal finances. We cannot do our work of keeping the government accountable for its spending choices if it does not respect us enough to provide the necessary information to allow me and all of my colleagues to do our jobs effectively.

Again today, it is up to the opposition to correct the continued mistakes of the government. This is disrespectful to us as parliamentarians, it is disrespectful to this hallowed institution and it is disrespectful to the Canadian people, for whose tax dollars we are ultimately responsible.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Brampton East this morning.

It is great to see the Speaker and all of our colleagues, despite this being in a virtual setting. It is the world we are living in right now.

Today I have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-14. For those sitting at home, this means the implementation of commitments that were made by our government in the fall economic statement. What I hope to do with my time here today is talk about those commitments and how they relate to what I have heard in my constituency of Kings—Hants and in Nova Scotia, and talk a bit about where I see the future in terms of our economic recovery.

I will first talk about support announced in the fall economic statement that is part of this bill. There are $1,200 to help support children under six years old in households that are making under $120,000 a year. I cannot say how much I have heard on the doorsteps in my riding of Kings—Hants about the power and benefit of the Canada child benefit and what it has meant for low- and medium-income households to have a little extra money at the end of the month to buy healthy groceries and make sure their dependants have opportunities in recreation, arts and different activities.

In Kings—Hants alone, though I do not have the exact number, I believe the program means that $15 million or $16 million a month go to my riding. My hon. predecessor, Scott Brison, talked about what this program meant for the people in Kings—Hants and, indeed, across the country. Every member of Parliament in this House could speak about the importance of what this program means. It is a temporary measure. It is $1,200 for 2021, recognizing the fact that families are going through challenges right now and we need to be there for them as a government. It is certainly something I applaud as a parliamentarian, and I expect that all members of the House can speak about the benefit of what this represents.

I turned 30 not too long ago. I am one of the youngest members in the House and the youngest in the governing party, and I am not too far removed from my days in university. I was fortunate to attend Saint Mary's University in Halifax and Dalhousie for a law degree, and I can say that the cost of education is a challenge for many individuals. I still hold student debt. We need to make sure we are helping to protect those students, in particular, who are most vulnerable. Right now, as I understand it, as part of this bill, 1.4 million Canadian students will not have interest accrue on their student loans during this time. That is extremely important. We know that we need to support our next generation of young workers and leaders in our country, and I certainly applaud the government in this direction.

I want to talk about long-term health care. In my part of the country, in Nova Scotia, we have seen the challenges in Northwood. There were 51 deaths in long-term care in Northwood. We have seen challenges across the country, in Quebec and Ontario in particular. I have heard from constituents in my riding who reached out to me to say that we need to do more on long-term care, that the federal government needs to be willing to help step up and support, and that is exactly what we announced in the fall economic statement.

We have dedicated over $500 million to help support the provinces and territories in battling COVID and making sure measures are in place. We know there are probably longer-term conversations that need to happen around long-term care, but this is a meaningful step in the right direction. We recall that during the height of the pandemic, when premiers and provincial governments called upon the Canadian Armed Forces to intervene and help support, we were there to make sure that happened.

Through the safe restart program, $19 billion went to the provinces and municipal governments to help support them through some of the most challenging times in the pandemic. This is another demonstration of the work this government has been doing to support the provinces and territories, particularly in an area that is extremely important, which of course is long-term care.

There are also $133 million allocated in Bill C-14 for virtual care. As chair of the rural caucus, I know that for some of our most rural and remote communities having access to care may not allow for a direct relationship. We may in some cases need to be able to access tools and technologies, very similar to the way we are running a national Parliament right now on a Zoom call. We can make sure that telemedicine and telehealth options are available. Given the pandemic, this is extremely important as an interim measure, but in the days ahead it is going to be even more important moving forward.

The final piece I want to talk about in the key points I wanted to highlight in this bill is a change under the ability for business owners to access the rent subsidy. Before Christmas, the Minister of Finance, through I think Bill C-9, announced changes on the wage subsidy to help support businesses and simplify support for rent for businesses. This was extremely important in my community of Kings—Hants.

I live in an area called East Hants about half an hour outside of Halifax. Although Nova Scotia has been spared and we have worked collectively to avoid some of the case counts we have seen across the country, there was a rise in cases just before Christmas that required significant shutdowns, particularly for restaurants and hospitality organizations. This was something they were able to take advantage of. The provision under this act allows them to access the benefit before rent is actually due, which is extremely important because we know cash flow for businesses is challenging, particularly in the hospitality and restaurant sectors.

I have had the chance to listen in on this debate, which was happening yesterday, and will continue today and I believe tomorrow as well. I want to point something out. I have heard members of the opposition talk about the debt. As someone who considers himself a business Liberal and who certainly appreciates that we have to be fiscally prudent, I recognize that is not a bad direction, but it is hypocrisy.

There are members in this House who, in one sense, talk about the debt, which is a valid concern and we have to be mindful about managing that in the days ahead, but then in the other sense, they say this government has not done enough. In one breath they say we have taken on too much debt and are concerned about it, and then in the next breath they talk about all the measures the government should have taken further.

I would like to ask my Conservative colleagues across the way which it is. Is it that they are concerned about the debt and we should not have taken as much on, or is it that we need to do even more for our businesses? Most Canadians at home are going to recognize that talking out both sides of their mouths is hypocrisy.

I want to finish by talking about where we are going. Yesterday, the member for Carleton talked about the concern with rising debt levels. I agree with him that we need a strong economic strategy on the other side. We have a budget that will be forthcoming, I suspect, in the next couple of months. Our government is focused on ways to drive economic recovery. We have talked about providing up $70 billion to $100 billion of temporary economic stimulus.

The Minister of Finance has been quite clear, both in this House and outside, that her focus will be on those temporary measures. We have to be mindful of adding large structural spending that is not sustainable over the long term. I applaud her in that regard. Our government is going to have a strong plan to be able to bounce back and manage the debt load by growing our economy. That is traditionally how all countries of the world have been able to do this: growing their economy to be able to make the proportion of the debt to their economy go down and down. That was certainly the case before the pandemic, as we had the lowest unemployment in 40 years and a lowering debt-to-GDP ratio.

I want to put on the record some things I think are going to be important in the days ahead. The first is child care. This is not just an idea of social programming anymore, this is beneficial. Economists and business leaders around the world are talking about the importance of child care to help support parents getting back into the workplace. That is certainly something we need to see in the days ahead.

The second is agriculture. As the chair of the rural caucus, the agriculture industry in Canada is extremely important to me. It represents over $130 billion to our GDP and we are poised to be able to grow even further. I hope to see in the days ahead our government leveraging that industry for success.

I will finish with a few others such as natural resources, particularly our forest industry. I look to British Columbia around mass timber and the success it is having in being able to drive innovative practices and sustainable business practices for our forestry sector. On the Atlantic and the Pacific in our coastal communities, small craft harbours is an extremely important program to help support our fishing community.

The final point is on regulatory reform and modernization. We are talking a lot about spending, which is important. We are following other OECD countries. We also have to look at ways to leverage the private sector to be able to let it grow and create jobs, and so we have to be creative in the days ahead as well.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the parliamentary secretary, but clearly the government is tone deaf. He did not hear what I had to say. Small businesses that started after March 15 have been abandoned. They have not been able to access the wage subsidy. They have not been able to access the loan program. They have not been able to access the commercial rent program, even the new one. Even Bill C-9 does not help those businesses. They have been completely abandoned. He needs to address what the Liberals are going to do for them.

We kicked and screamed so the wage subsidy would go from 10% to 75% and so the Liberals would fix the commercial rent program and expand the CEBA program. The member can count on me to be kicking and screaming until they fix their programs to help support the start-ups that have been completely abandoned by the government. I will be back here tomorrow and will be back here the week after. Until the government helps them, the New Democrats will be in their corner.

The Liberals need to stop patting themselves on the back and start doing things to fix these broken programs so the people who need the help the most get it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention on behalf of small businesses in Canada.

To break from my prepared remarks for a moment, let me first extend my empathy to the business owners he mentioned who are struggling in his own community. He can rest assured that I am having similar conversations with businesses and have been having them from the outset of this pandemic.

However, the suggestion, implicitly or explicitly, that we have abandoned small businesses is disingenuous in the extreme. The hon. member knows that to help keep Canadians safe, we decided to make it more affordable for businesses to do the right thing and shut down or reduce traffic through their premises.

We did through Bill C-9, which just received royal assent a few days ago. It extends the wage subsidy to next summer and, importantly, creates the new Canada emergency rent subsidy. This is going to provide a subsidy of up to 65% to businesses that have lost revenue as a result of this pandemic and up to 90%, with the additional lockdown support, to those that have been ordered to close as a result of a public health order.

With respect to the wage subsidy, it is contributing directly to help 3.8 million Canadian workers stay on the payroll. It does not just help them keep getting paid. It also helps their employers retain and rehire them if they had to furlough them to make ends meet throughout this pandemic.

We have advanced the Canada emergency response benefit, which self-employed people were eligible for. It has helped keep food on the table for nine million Canadians. We have advanced the Canada emergency business account to provide interest-free loans, partially forgivable loans, and we are now increasing them from $40,000 to $60,000, up to $20,000 of which will be forgivable.

The reality is that we have done what we can to meet many needs of many businesses. We have even established the regional relief and recovery fund for businesses that did not qualify for some of the supports I mentioned.

While I appreciate fully that the hon. member has the best of intentions in trying to defend the small businesses in his community, I do not believe it is appropriate, and in fact I think it is ludicrous, to suggest our government has abandoned small businesses, as we have launched more support for them than any other government in the history of our country.

Small businesses should know they have a friend in our government. We have been there for them from day one of this pandemic and we will be there for them until it is over.

Small Business

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada reports that nearly one in three small businesses does not know how much longer they can stay in business, and the government still cannot get its rent subsidy right.

Bill C-9 was written on the fly and had to be rushed through Parliament without proper scrutiny, even though the Liberals had months to get it right. As written, the bill excludes the businesses that need help the most: the ones that have fallen behind while waiting for the government.

The finance minister had a solution. She told the Senate finance committee that since she clearly intended for these businesses to qualify, the CRA can just interpret the law according to her intentions. Is that really how it works? Is it the minister's intention that counts? It is not the rule of law now; it is the rule of ministerial intention.

Intentions do not pay the rent and neither do endless announcements. It is November 20, the first is coming soon, and thousands of small businesses do not know how they are going to pay the rent.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Laurent for her ongoing advocacy on behalf of businesses in her riding, as well as the workers who live there.

As Montrealers and Canadians across Canada fight the second wave of this pandemic, we know that businesses and workers are counting on us to get through this. With Bill C-9, our government is proposing a new Canada emergency rent subsidy, covering up to 65% of rent for businesses, and additional lockdown support that could cover up to 90% for those who are impacted hardest by public health orders.

We said we would be there for businesses and workers every step of the way through this pandemic, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There has been discussion among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy), shall be disposed of as follows:

(a) the second reading stage of the bill shall be taken up as the first order of the day on Wednesday, November 4, 2020, provided that at the expiry of time provided for Government Orders or when no member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put, forthwith and successively, every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, provided that any recorded division shall stand deferred according to the provisions of the order made on Wednesday, September 23, 2020;

(b) if the bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a committee of the whole and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this order shall apply;

(c) on Thursday, November 5, 2020, at the conclusion of the time provided for Private Members' Business, the House shall resolve into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill and on the economy generally for a period not to exceed four hours, provided that

(i), the Speaker may preside,

(ii) the Chair may preside from the Speaker's chair,

(iii) the committee be subject to the provisions relating to hybrid sittings of the House;

(iv) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance be invited to appear and the minister shall be questioned for four hours, provided that

(A) the Chair shall call members from all recognized parties and one member who does not belong to a recognized party in a fashion consistent with the proportions observed during Oral Questions,

(B) no member shall be recognized for more than five minutes at a time which may be used for posing questions,

(C) members may be permitted to split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the Chair,

(D) the rotation used for questions be the one used by the former Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and

(E) questions shall be answered by ministers, and

(v) at the conclusion of the time provided for Committee of the Whole, the committee shall rise, the said bill shall be deemed reported to the House without amendment, and the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day; and

(d) the report stage of the said bill shall be taken up as the first order of the day on Friday, November 6, 2020, provided that

(i) the deadline for notices of report stage motions shall be 10 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2020, provided that copies of the notices shall also be provided to the House leaders of the recognized parties and, if required, the Order Paper and Notice Paper be published for the sitting day of Friday, November 6th, 2020,

(ii) the time provided for Government Orders shall be extended, if necessary, to allow for one representative of each recognized party to speak,

(iii) at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, when no member rises to speak at the report stage, or if the Speaker does not select any amendments for consideration at the said stage, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill, without further debate or amendment; provided that (A) any recorded division on any amendment considered at the said stage shall not be deferred, and (B) the motion for concurrence at report stage be deemed adopted on division, and

(iv) the said bill may be debated at the third reading stage at the same sitting, provided that, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders or when no member rises to speak at the said stage, whichever comes first, the said bill shall be deemed read a third time and passed, on division.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this important question for the workers of Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

The wage subsidy has provided important job security for more than 3.7 million people in Canada, as we continue to fight COVID-19. With Bill C-9, we will extend the wage subsidy until June 2021 so that Canadian businesses will be in a strong position when we emerge from the crisis.

I hope that all members will join us and support the extension of this important program.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on the tourism sector. My riding is on Vancouver Island and we are suffering through the exact same things. We just simply do not have visitors coming to enjoy the recreational fishing, whale watching or enjoying all the beautiful lodges and amazing scenery. We are suffering in exactly the same way.

I want to ask the member about the second part of the motion. We are asking for flexibility with rental assistance now. For months opposition members have been bringing this problem to the attention of the government. Only now are we seeing legislation in the form of Bill C-9.

Does he not find it quite remarkable that we are only just now finding action on this file and we are already in the month of November? It is quite remarkable that we have had to wait this long.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to support the motion, as it is one of great importance not only to my constituents but in fact all Canadians, as we look to address and combat the impacts of COVID-19.

We are now eight months into this enduring pandemic, with no immediate end in sight. That is why it is so troubling, as Canadians wait for the Liberal government to announce an economic recovery plan, one that lays a path forward without compromising health and safety.

While much focus has been on the well-being of Canadians, as it rightly should be, our Canadian economy also deserves attention. In particular, it has been Canadian workers and small businesses, especially in the restaurant, hospitality and travel and tourism sectors, who have been hardest hit.

As member of Parliament for Niagara Falls and special adviser to the leader on tourism recovery, I have held many Zoom meetings with business leaders and other travel and tourism stakeholders to hear their concerns, challenges and what it is they need to survive through this pandemic so that they can one day achieve recovery.

There are increasing concerns, frustrations and anxiety from these stakeholders who are waiting on the promised extensions and amendments to key support programs, including the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program and the Canada emergency business account.

The longer the Liberal government delays, the more concerned these stakeholders become, the greater their frustration mounts and the higher their anxieties rise. It is by no coincidence the Liberals announced Bill C-9 merely one day before we were about to begin debate on this very important motion. As with many of the key economic programs it has developed, the government has come to the table a day late.

Many of these stakeholders also point to the existing federal government policies as a source of their troubles and frustrations. Although we must talk about the needed legislation to support small businesses, we must never lose sight of the source of their desperation in the first place. It was the design flaws in these Liberal programs that added to the confusion, burden and negative consequences suffered by many in our travel and tourism industry.

What is needed now is a way forward, a plan for recovery that does not compromise the health and safety of Canadians. In fact, research conducted by McKinsey & Company, in collaboration with Destination Canada, indicated that without government investment 61,000 tourism businesses are projected to fail and 1.66 million tourism sector employees could be laid off.

It is incumbent on our federal government to get business supports right and implemented in a timely manner. It must also present a much-needed tourism recovery plan. This plan is long overdue. Many stakeholders have emphasized how far behind Canada is compared with some other countries like the United Kingdom and countries in the European Union. This is especially true when it comes to the development and implementation of tools such as rapid testing, which could reduce the negative impacts the 14-day mandatory quarantine has on businesses in the travel and tourism sector.

The “hardest hit” campaign launched by the recently established Coalition of Hardest Hit Businesses warns that jobs are at risk if current policies and conditions remain the same. This group is asking for the wage subsidy to remain at 75% until the summer of 2021. I understand the government is proposing a maximum of 65%. Is the Liberal government even listening?

We need to listen to businesses now and deliver the programs they so desperately need to avoid many of them failing and permanently closing. The longer this pandemic drags on, the more apparent it becomes the Liberal government is in a state of policy confusion. Although the policy environment is quickly changing and extremely dynamic, the Liberal government fails to keep up, consult, adapt and change with it.

This is even more frustrating to see when we know of businesses and industries that are desperately trying to forge ahead with their own responsible solutions in the interest of their very own survival. According to Restaurants Canada, its membership has invested over $750 million in training, sanitizer stations, PPE, air purification systems and other protective equipment, all designed to provide the highest levels of safety to their customers. Despite these investments, this sector has seen a loss of 188,000 jobs and recent closures could see that number rise by another 100,000 jobs.

We can also look at the rapid testing pilots under way in our aviation industry to see the innovative leadership taking place there as well. Great work is being done by private sector actors at the international airports in Toronto and Vancouver. Work on innovative solutions like these is very much needed and needed now. Solutions could be achieved so much quicker if these industries had a willing and enthusiastic federal government partner to work with.

The first wave of COVID-19 has slammed our Canadian tourism and travel industry. The sector was hit first, it was hit hardest and it will take the longest to recover. Casualties from this pandemic are not just measured by those infected by this virus and the lives sadly lost. They are also measured by the livelihoods destroyed when businesses are forced to permanently close through no fault of their own.

How many more sacrifices can Canadians be told to make by the Liberal government as it continues forward without any plans for a recovery or any sense of urgency in providing the promised supports businesses need to survive?

I come from a tourism community where 40,000 people work in this sector. There are over 16,000 hotel rooms in our riding to accommodate the over 14 million visitors who traditionally would visit each year. Most of these people have been out of work since March. Their employers are heavily leveraged, they have spent their reserves and now face increased insurance premium renewals, some running at double and triple regular rates.

These challenges are not just happening in Niagara but across our entire national travel and tourism industry. In fact, Destination Canada is even forecasting that we should not expect to see a recovery to 2019 tourism levels until 2024. In its October 2020 “State of the Industry” report, it says that this would be a catastrophic loss for our economy. This would be devastating for the almost one in 10 Canadians who work in our travel and tourism industry.

Considering the dire strait of travel and tourism across Canada, it is only appropriate that my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge has introduced this timely opposition motion. The motion is very important. What it asks of the government is urgently needed, and urgently needed now.

As Parliament, we need to do more to support measures that adapt us to live safely and responsibly in a COVID world until we have a vaccine ready. This means balancing health and economic interests without compromising the safety and well-being of Canadians.

It also means supporting our small businesses, including those in the travel and tourism economy, with the programs they need to survive and to provide these programs in a timely manner. We also need to do more to support timely investments in innovative solutions to mitigate and manage the risks of COVID-19.

We need the federal government to present a sector-specific tourism recovery plan so our travel and tourism businesses can get through this pandemic together. We need the federal government to move quicker and to be there for Canadians when it is needed.

I have one additional quote from the same Destination Canada report, which says, “We need to help provide a light at the end of the tunnel-the November to March months are some of the lowest in terms of overall visitation. Many businesses are facing decisions on whether to stay open over the next months.”

This is a call to action and so too is our motion. Canadians want to get back to work and they are looking to Parliament for timely and critical solutions. Now is the time to deliver.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

I am very pleased to be joining the debate. Actually, I am happy to be talking about anything right now, as we just never know when an opposition party will ask for a document from the government and it will prorogue again or perhaps call an instant election, so I am pleased to be debating this motion.

Today's motion is about supporting small and medium enterprises. There are two main parts. The first is an immediate pause to the audits of small businesses that have received the wage subsidy, at least until June of next year, and the second is to provide flexibility to the rent subsidy program, the wage subsidy program and other programs.

The first part is regarding CRA audits. It is funny that the last three interventions were all from members of OGGO. I have great respect for all of them, but the previous speaker talked about audits being a learning and helpful experience. I can tell the member and everyone listening that, having been in business, the CRA is not there to improve their business. No one looks upon a CRA audit as helpful. The CRA is there for one reason: to squeeze as much money as possible from Canadians and Canadian businesses.

I have to ask: In what world does anyone think now is the time to burden small businesses with a CRA audit? We are in a pandemic. Small businesses, restaurants and retail operations at the best of times, during boom times, have difficulty making it through. Now, during the pandemic and with closures, layoffs and supply line difficulties, the government thinks it is a great time to help Canadians out by having CRA audits. It is mind-boggling. It is beyond dumb, and it has to be stopped immediately.

The second part is regarding subsidies. It is important that the government switch from the one-size-fits-all subsidy program that we have seen and involve the stakeholders and opposition parties and listen to what needs to be done. I am glad to see Bill C-9, where the government is actually making changes to its failed rent subsidy program, but there is a lot more that needs to be done and I hope it will listen.

We have heard the leader of my party state there is no business in Canada without small business, and I agree 100%. I want to give a shout-out, though, to a government department that deserves some credit. It is OSME: the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises within PSPC, Public Services and Procurement Canada. This small agency does nothing but provide assistance to small businesses that are learning how to bid on government contracts.

I encourage all small businesses to take a look at the website. They just need to google OSME. It provides great webinars and seminars on how to bid on government business and win government contracts. The Government of Canada, for better or for worse, is the largest buyer of goods and services in Canada by far, so now more than ever it is a great time to take a look. I have teamed up with OSME to do seminars with business and cultural groups. It does a phenomenal job, and I suggest people look it up.

I am very pleased that this motion specifically mentions the restaurant and hospitality business. Before I became what author Douglas Adams calls a lizard man, a politician, I spent 37 years in the hospitality industry, in restaurants and hotels. Like many Canadians, it was my very first job. I worked as a busboy when I was 14 at the Blarney Stone in Gastown, Vancouver.

Later, I joined the hotel business and worked my way up through the business and across Canada, from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland, and back again. It was a phenomenal industry. It allowed me to meet and work with a lot of people from different cultures and, funnily enough, I ended up getting to serve and meet every prime minister, from Pierre Trudeau all the way up to Prime Minister Harper.

The hotel and restaurant industry is vital to Canada. It employs approximately 1.2 million Canadians. If we take the median income supplied by Statistics Canada, that is about $31 billion a year in wages that the industry provides, but more important than that, it very often provides the first job for a young Canadian: the first chance to learn responsibility and the first chance to get the pride of a paycheque.

Even more important than all of that, the hospitality industry, restaurants and hotels particularly, very often provide the very first job for new Canadians when they come here. This industry, more than any other industry, is welcoming people who have perhaps limited language and other skills, and it gives them the opportunity to provide for their families.

More than any industry in Canada and probably the world, this industry also provides a welcoming work environment to those in the LGBTQ community. My wife and I both grew up in the restaurant and hotel industry and I can attest that no other industry has provided such a welcoming atmosphere. The hotel industry was probably the very first to break the glass ceiling for women as well, long before any other industry. It is a vital industry and we need to protect it.

The Hotel Association of Canada has asked for various types of relief, and there are a couple of things that we need to work with. We have to tailor the wage subsidy program so that we do not have a one-size-fits-all program. Perhaps one could be specifically for the hotel industry. We have seen a lot of other industries in Canada bounce back, but particularly the tourism industry, restaurants, hotels, fairs and events, are probably bearing the brunt more than any other industry. There are enough people, and I am sure we could tailor a program specifically for it.

We need to develop a specific credit availability program for the industry. It is one thing to have small business loans, but the government has to realize that a single hotel, for example, is still saddled with probably $300,000 to $400,000 a year in municipal property taxes, and $30,000 to $40,000 a month in fixed costs, such as hydro, electricity and other bills, even with the hotel shut down.

We also have to fix the CERB. I have heard repeatedly from small businesses, restaurants and hotels about the difficulty of hiring people back, because they are finding it better to be on the CERB than to return to employment. Now the CERB has been great. It has helped a lot of people, but it is ridiculous that we have a program that if a person goes back to work part time and earns one penny over $1,000, that person would lose the full CERB. We need to have a system where people can continue to work more and have a clawback rather than an all-or-nothing approach.

As well, we have to address the financial crisis with our airports. We have to stop using the travel industry as a cash cow for the government. We did an Order Paper question for Transport Canada about security fees at airports, and we found that this government, from 2015 to 2019, has banked an additional quarter of a billion dollars in security fees from airports. When buying a ticket, we see the security fee, and 75¢ of that goes to actually providing security at the airport. The government is banking the rest. There is a lot the government can do to help out the businesses in the travel industry besides wage subsidies and other programs by doing common-sense things, like stop acting like it is a cash cow.

For heaven's sake, my Liberal colleagues across the way should get their act together on rapid testing. It should not be up to Air Canada to team up with companies to provide rapid testing for their customers in Toronto or Calgary. It should not be up to WestJet. The government should be on this and be providing rapid testing for airports and other communities to help out.

As I mentioned before, this industry is vital to Canada. It has been hit harder than any other industry we have seen. We have seen so many bounce back. We have seen other things improve, but the travel and tourism industries are still getting pummelled. A lot more can be done.

I hope the government will support our motion today to increase the flexibility for the programs, listen to stakeholders and, for heaven's sake, call off the dogs at the CRA. A colleague across the way said, “Oh, they're a hands-off organization”. We have seen the minister stand repeatedly in the House and brag about how she has sent people to go after tax evaders abroad. Call off the dogs at the CRA. We do not need an audit punishing our small businesses right now.

I ask the government to accept the motion, support the motion, push back the audit for the year and work with the opposition parties to improve the programs helping our small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

I want to thank the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for the excellent motion he presented today. It is very important. I am very pleased with it, and I will be supporting it strongly.

I want to break down the motion a bit.

Part one says, “the pandemic has had devastating consequences on Canadian workers and businesses, especially in the restaurant...and tourism sectors”. It has been 12 months since the coronavirus showed up in China, 11 months since the Prime Minister and the health minister were warned about it, 10 months before Canadians started getting sick on cruises, nine months since the first cases in Canada and eight months since small businesses were hit with declining or disappearing revenue.

One of the first messages I received was from a small manufacturing business in my riding. The constituent wrote, “The government’s support for small business in this COVID-19 situation is entirely inadequate. Avoiding layoffs is the critical issue right now. Our production line is idle and we need action now. The government has provided 10% salary support...and it's not enough.”

It turns out that this business owner was far more perceptive than the government. The government's big idea was a 10% wage subsidy. Business owners knew intuitively this was not enough. Other countries had already implemented higher subsidies. The U.K. had a subsidy of 80%. Business owners understood that if businesses were not supported, individuals would need help one by one.

I received another letter in March. It states:

I just wanted to let you know that Bateman Jewellers would be celebrating 75 years in business this year. But due to COVID-19 we are going to have to shut down for a while until this pandemic passes. The 10% special wage subsidy is not even close for us to continue to run our business. As a result, we are adding to the already 500,000 going to EI for support. We will add five more this week. I ask you to try and get the government to do more for small business. Small business has carried this country for years and it is time for the government to support us.

It is clear that the average business owner in Canada could clearly see where things were going, yet the government was slow to act. Yes, the government eventually increased the wage subsidy to 75%, but it was because the opposition continued to bring forward the business point of view in the House. Unfortunately, for most businesses it was too late. People had already been laid off and were applying for CERB. In the months since then, small businesses have continued to suffer, creating an economic crisis in our country.

The second part of the motion asks us to “immediately pause the audits of small businesses that received the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy until at least June 2021.” We have had eight months of economic hardship and uncertainty, and now the Prime Minister wants to audit the same small businesses he promised to help.

I spent 20 years as an accountant and 12 years as a small business owner. This morning I was quite amused that the member for Guelph had the audacity to suggest that business owners appreciated audits and that audits could be helpful and a learning opportunity. Let me help this member and the rest of my colleagues opposite better understand the anatomy of an audit call.

After answering the phone, a business owner will hear, “Hello, Mr. Smith. The CRA has selected your file for audit.” Let me paint a picture of what happens at that moment. His knees will get wobbly and he will have to sit down. His entire business life will flash before his eyes. The vast majority of business owners are honest, but the system is complex. Mistakes can be made, so the next thought is “I am going to be in trouble”.

At this point, he has to take a deep breath and calm down. Once settled down a bit, he has to start to figure out what to do next. Usually the first call is to the accountant. However, for many small businesses, the business owners are the accountants. They are calling themselves. They have to dig out a bunch of records and spend a bunch of time with the auditor. Remember, the small business owner has likely laid off much of his support staff, if he had any to begin with. He may be cooking in the kitchen. He may be delivering orders. He still has to run his business. He is struggling to pay his bills and the last thing he needs is to deal with an auditor.

The bottom line is that we assume small business owners are honest, hard-working Canadians. They are not tax cheats like the Liberals would like us to think. Small business owners are our best asset to deploy in this pandemic. They will get Canada working again and will generate revenue for employees and for the government. They need to be focused and they need time to do their jobs. I believe it is very reasonable to provide CRA with info in 2021 once these small businesses have filed their paperwork for 2020.

The third part of the motion asks us to “immediately introduce legislation to enact promised extensions and amendments to support programs”. I want to remind the House that the government shut down Parliament in the spring. It replaced Parliament over the spring and summer with a sham committee system that kept the government unaccountable and then, of course, prorogued Parliament. The Liberals had seven months to introduce legislation for this, but instead they acted late and their actions were inadequate, although they still managed to find ways to launder money to their friends, like the Kielburgers.

The fourth part of this motion asks us to “provide additional flexibility in the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, and other support programs.” This is what my party has wanted for nine months. Businesses with mortgages were treated differently from businesses with leased space.

I have another letter from a constituent. It says:

I own a small business called The Backyard...we took out a mortgage with BDC to complete this expansion and currently the only relief offered...is to defer principal payments, but they still require payments of interest. As we have been ordered to be closed now for nearly a month, we obviously have no income and no ability to pay the...interest they are requiring. I fail to see how it makes sense that a bank who is federally mandated to serve entrepreneurs, and had a net income of $886M in 2019, should continue to collect interest from small businesses and entrepreneurs such as ourselves who have been ordered to be closed.

Clearly, many of the criteria were too rigid.

I have another letter. It states:

I wanted to...give my feedback regarding the 75% rent relief announcement made by the Prime Minister.... My company has been ordered to close by the Provincial government.... Despite my doors being closed I have done my best to operate in some way to generate some sense of revenue online. Had I not taken these steps I would likely never re-open my doors.... Essentially, over the 2 and a half months of closure.... This accounts for [about] 50% of our pre-covid [income]...or more importantly an entire month and a half's worth of revenue. I'm sure you can understand how devastating that is to a small business. To say that our business has been kneecapped due to the governmental responses to covid-19 is an understatement.

The biggest problem with the rent relief program was the requirement that the landlord had to initiate the application. One of my constituents, Sherry, had a restaurant that was on the verge of going bankrupt. She asked many times for the landlord to make an application for her for the rent relief program. She asked me to see if I could help, so I phoned the commercial leasing agent. I was told that they were not going to apply to the program, even though they have many commercial tenants, because the application process was too onerous. Then Sherry got behind in her rent for July and August and the landlord would not renew her lease.

We can see that the design and implementation of these programs were entirely inadequate. They only helped a narrow swath of businesses. The results of these programs speak for themselves. The wage subsidy program has been very under subscribed. The rent relief program was seriously under subscribed. Originally, businesses had to lose 70% of their revenue to qualify, and the results show that this did nothing for 90% of businesses in Canada.

The Conservatives immediately called on the government to address this flaw, and the redesigned program was announced October 9. For five months, the Conservatives called for a new program with the introduction of a sliding scale instead of requiring a hard 70% reduction in revenue. The Liberals have finally made these changes, but they were announced a full week after the program expired. Why was this not done in August? It was because of the prorogation. The legislation was only introduced in the House of Commons yesterday.

What is missing in all of these programs? Why are we debating this motion and not Bill C-9? It is all about flexibility. Once again, the Liberal government has unilaterally made programming changes without proper consultation.

The Conservatives have supported COVID programming in the past, warts and all. Why? It is because Canadians need help. We would rather get some help to them, flawed or not, than leave them with no help. The Liberals are in the all-or-nothing club. We must vote for the Prime Minister or he will make something a confidence vote, triggering an election. The Conservatives do not operate like that. We do not play brinkmanship with taxpayer dollars, we do not play brinkmanship with people’s jobs and we do not play with people’s health. That is why I am supporting this motion.