What we're trying to understand here is why a policy decision was taken to uniquely deploy the wage subsidy policy tool as a way to provide ongoing support to the industry, when it leaves about half the industry behind.
Until very recently, the government had another policy tool that captured those folks. That was the Canada recovery benefit. The Canada worker lockdown benefit was seen as the way to try to replace that. I think it does a shoddy job. That's a debate I'm looking forward to having, but not right now.
The question is this: If it was a principal policy objective of the government to continue to support people in the tourism and hospitality industry, why was there not a stream in the Canada worker lockdown benefit, for instance, that would provide for the very people I'm talking about right now—people who work independently, for themselves—who comprise a large percentage of the industry?
Why was a decision made not to create a stream under the Canada worker lockdown benefit that would continue to provide ongoing financial support to them, regardless of whether there was a public health lockdown in effect in their jurisdiction, as described in the act?