Debates of Oct. 21st, 2020

Criminal Code

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response, I will say what I hope not to see. I do not want to see any wandering discourse meant to sweep this under the rug.

I also want everyone here to acknowledge that we are but humble humans, not experts. We will hear from the experts in committee, experts who will guide us on what useful, appropriate tools should be included in the bill.

We must not use urgency as an excuse to rush this. Once again, I am thinking of those who must have nothing better to do at the moment and are listening to us on ParlVU. They are probably thinking that we should stop talking and get on with it already.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the member's comments, which are very much appreciated. She puts faces and reality to the legislation we are debating today.

It was not that long ago, back in 2015, that we had to bring in legislation. We have been seeing it evolve, and in many ways it cannot evolve fast enough. We could take a look at the province of Quebec, for example. In certain areas, they are further advanced than other parts of Canada. That is one of the benefits of the federation. I agree with the member: I would ultimately like to see the bill go to committee, because I think a lot of stakeholders are interested in contributing to the discussion.

This is more of a comment than a question.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I am probably coming to the end of my time, I would like to commend my esteemed colleague, Véronique Hivon, who worked very hard to ensure that Quebec led the way in medical assistance in dying. It now sets the standard. I take this opportunity to acknowledge her.

I will also take this opportunity to say that Quebec is often a source of inspiration. In this case, that is probably even more true. I hope that everyone will look to Quebec's example in passing this legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague opposite, the member for Winnipeg North, I want to add to my colleague's speech.

I, too, have some touching stories that are often hard to talk about because it is such an emotional subject. I want to congratulate my colleague for her very poignant speech. These stories humanize the debate and show us the situations that we are making decisions about.

In my riding, a woman who had fought to obtain MAID passed away last year. She did not have time to complete the process. As my colleague said, we must stand together to ensure that people who are dying have the right to die with dignity.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once the bill is passed, we will put our faith in eminent experts who are much more knowledgeable than we are, thanks to a university system that is supported by our tax dollars. They will testify in committee, and we will listen to them. We will improve the bill, to make sure that the act is fair and easy to implement.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak this evening on Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), or MAID.

The meaning and consequence of this bill should weigh heavily on all Canadian parliamentarians. Today we are debating the competing interests of individual autonomy and the sanctity of human life. We are addressing the suffering of our loved ones, the dignity of the elderly and disabled and the moral, legal and ethical concerns that are inextricably tied to medically assisted death. We are setting out the rules, standards and boundaries by which Canadian doctors and nurses can, at a patient's request, terminate life. This cannot be taken lightly and it is not legislation that should be rushed, but that is the predicament that this Parliament finds itself in.

In 2016, the Liberal government passed Bill C-14, legalizing MAID. Last year, in the case of Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict the availability of MAID to individuals whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable. Contrary to the requests of my Conservative colleagues and many advocacy groups, the Attorney General, who bears the responsibility of upholding laws passed in Parliament, chose not to appeal the ruling in Truchon. It is difficult for me to understand how something as essential to life as one's departure from it is not important enough for the Liberal government to appeal. This is something that should have had both comment and decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Because of the Liberal government's inaction, we are now working up against a December 18 Quebec-court-imposed deadline to enact a legislative response for the whole country. Its declaration of constitutional invalidity expires on that date. I want to assure my constituents in South Surrey—White Rock and all Canadians that, as a member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will stand up for their shared values and beliefs and work tirelessly to ensure the amendments proposed in Bill C-7, and their consequences, are carefully studied and considered despite the impending December deadline.

Turning now to the substance of Bill C-7, I am concerned that the bill, as written, is too broad and lacks the safeguards necessary to protect Canada's most vulnerable populations. Let me be clear. The removal of the “reasonably foreseeable” standard will significantly increase the number of Canadians eligible for MAID. The breadth of qualifying conditions widens considerably under Bill C-7. For anyone who initially opposed MAID on slippery slope concerns, it appears we are now sliding down that proverbial hill. Will we eventually follow the Netherlands' lead, which recently ended up in its announced plans to offer MAID to children under 12?

As a group of physicians recently put in a letter to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, urging an appeal of the Truchon decision, “Canada will have moved well beyond allowing an autonomous life-ending decision at the end of life into the realm of death on demand for almost any reason at any time.”

We know, from Health Canada's annual report published in July, that 2% of deaths in Canada in 2019 were medically assisted.

How much higher would that number be under Bill C-7, and how many Canadians would be eligible for MAID without the “reasonably foreseeable” requirement? Both questions must be answered.

If this is in fact the direction in which Parliament decides to take this legislation, we need more safeguards to protect the more vulnerable, not fewer. As written, Bill C-7 redefines who qualifies for the end-of-life procedure and strips away some of the protections put in place a mere four years ago.

One such amendment is the elimination of the mandatory 10-day reflection period. Under the original legislation, unless an exception applied, individuals wishing to receive MAID had to wait a period of 10 days after submitting their signed requests. In most instances, the waiting period makes sense. It ensures time for reflection before taking the irreversible action of ending one's life.

We know from Quebec's annual end-of-life care reports that since 2015, over 300 patients in Quebec alone changed their mind after requesting medical assistance in dying. In any event, exceptions already exist under the original law for those whose death is fast approaching and for people who will soon lose the capacity required to provide the necessary informed consent. Why then remove this 10-day reflection period?

Bill C-7 also takes aim at another safeguard included in the previous laws, reducing the number of independent witnesses needed to sign and date the candidate's application for MAID, from two to one.

This amendment would now apply to the newly eligible class of persons who are not faced with reasonably foreseeable or imminent death. Contrary to statements made in the House by the member for Winnipeg North, this is a real concern for many.

As a civil litigation lawyer, I have had my fair share of exposure to all sorts of legal documents requiring the signatures of independent witnesses to ensure both authenticity and true intent: wills, divorces, financial disclosures, affidavits and mortgages, to name a few. To express one's intentions in a will in B.C., a person must have two independent witnesses not named in the will to witness the authenticity of their signature and their intention at the time of signing. If these requirements are there to safeguard intentions regarding possessions, should they not also be there to safeguard a person's intentions regarding the method and timing of their death?

It should be noted that Bill C-7 does include a 90-day assessment period and directive that applicants be informed of available alternative treatments, but will these safeguards sufficiently protect our most vulnerable populations? When does the 90-day period begin? Is it recorded?

Another piece of the bill that I have difficulty with is that it allows patients who may lose capacity before the end-of-life procedure is performed to give their final consent in advance. This troubles me for the same reasons discussed before with respect to the 10-day waiting period. As we have seen, people do change their minds.

In recent weeks, we have heard from many representative groups that have expressed concern about the decision in Truchon. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the ARCH Disability Law Centre and others have articulated the concern that making individuals with disabilities who are not facing imminent death eligible for MAID would be harmful to the disabled community at large, affirming the untrue stereotype that a life with disabilities is not worth living.

We must pause to reflect on that. Those who are passionate advocates for Canadians with disabilities are very concerned about the direction these court and policy decisions are taking us, yet the Liberal government moves forward.

There still exists the legal concept of undue influence. Who are most susceptible to undue influence and coercion? It is the vulnerable. We have also heard from hundreds of physicians who share a concern that some patients have chosen the path of MAID due to the suffering caused by a lack of proper supports. A tragic example is from B.C., where a father suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease chose to undergo the end-of-life procedure because he did not receive the support and resources he so desperately needed.

The government is not listening to the heartbreaking stories of these ALS sufferers and their cries for the fast-tracking of life-lengthening and life-sustaining hopeful therapies that we cannot get in Canada. Is the government giving those sufferers and Canadians true options? We need compassion, yes, but compassion takes many forms.

Hospices are not readily available to all Canadians as an alternative. A good friend of mine died a couple of years ago of inoperable brain cancer. He was a doctor. In his case, he very carefully weighed MAID as opposed to living in hospice. He chose hospice because it extended his life for five months, which he could spend with his family. They were okay with his deterioration because they loved him, and they wanted to support him and be with him. However, he had that true option.

If we are going to expand the legislation, the government should equally ensure robust support for the vulnerable, hospice care and hopeful therapies are available. Everyone matters.

Finally, I would like to reflect on the health care professionals who are asked to implement this proposed law. We are now celebrating our doctors and nurses for their tireless efforts to keep our country healthy and safe. We should also ensure that they have the ability to decide whether this is compatible with their will or beliefs, and not be mistreated for any refusal to administer it.

To conclude, I have heard from constituents in my riding who are on both sides of this argument. I ask my colleagues to really take the necessary time to study the bill and reflect on these proposed amendments, especially as they affect the most vulnerable. We must be compassionate but we must also respect human life.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 19 five years ago, I was elected for the first time to represent the people of Mégantic—L'Érable. A year ago today, I was re-elected by the people of Mégantic—L'Érable to represent them and advocate for them here in Ottawa.

I have had the opportunity to speak about seniors, to vote on the bill on medical assistance in dying, and to stand up for business people, business owners and students. I have had the opportunity to talk about all kinds of things. Today, I rise to stand up for the people of Mégantic—L'Érable once again.

In March, as the country faced the worst pandemic in its history, the government was forced to adopt exceptional measures. Canada and Canadians invested hundreds of billions of dollars through these measures to protect themselves and move forward in spite of the pandemic.

Eventually, it became clear that the measures that had been put in place were stopping people from going back to work. A lot of people were getting the CERB. The Prime Minister appealed to Canadians directly. He told people to go back to work, reassuring them that they could do it with the wage subsidy and that the work-sharing program would be enhanced. Many workers in my riding decided to stop collecting the CERB and go back to work in answer to the Prime Minister's call, because their companies and our economy did in fact need them.

What happened? Those folks were proud to go back to work in May and June in response to that appeal. The government had said it would pay their companies half of their wages. Since then, however, many workers have been missing half their pay. Workers in Mégantic—L'Érable have been deprived of half their pay since May and June because the government is incapable of fixing a computer glitch between the CERB and the work-sharing program. This is unacceptable.

Let me review the facts. I sent letters to the minister. I spoke with the minister's office. I asked the Prime Minister a question on October 7, and he answered me. I was quite surprised. I got an answer from the Prime Minister during question period. He said he was not aware of the file and would get back to me. I was so hopeful. That same week, I had another meeting with the minister's office and her parliamentary secretary. I thought things were looking up and we might resolve the issue.

Where are we today? I will share the results. Initially, Princecraft had 95 workers who were getting only half their pay. Today, that number is 65. At Fournier Industries in Thetford Mines, there were 38 workers getting only half their pay. Today there are still 30. At Fournier Industrial Construction, there were 15 workers in that situation, and now there are 14. At Plessitech, there were 23, and now there are seven.

How are they supposed to live on half wages? It is impossible. These people trusted the government, and they got screwed.

When will their cases be resolved?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for his advocacy on this issue. We both have workers in our ridings that have been affected and that is why I appreciate his efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him to see that this matter is resolved as quickly as possible. We both have one goal and one goal only, and that is to see that the workers in Mégantic—L'Érable and Windsor—Tecumseh receive the pay they are rightfully owed.

Before I begin to respond, I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on unceded Algonquin territory.

I would also like to make it clear that the Government of Canada is committed to supporting Canadian workers during this crisis.

As I stated on October 7, the workers in Princeville, Thetford Mines and Plessisville deserve our support. They expected our support when they applied for the work-sharing program last spring, and they will get our support.

The work-sharing program is very popular. It makes it possible for the Government of Canada to support employers and employees when there is a reduction in business activity like the one we are currently experiencing because of the pandemic.

The program not only allows employers to retain valued and skilled workers, but also allows employees to maintain their work skills. Employees who are eligible for EI are also eligible for work sharing.

When COVID-19 hit, we knew that the work-sharing program could be used to help people get through the pandemic. We worked quickly to make it available to more employers and workers by creating temporary special measures, and we started by doubling the maximum duration of an agreement to a year and a half. We also cut the time needed to set up work-sharing agreements, from six weeks to two weeks. We simplified the mandatory paperwork for employers, which included taking away the need for employers to submit financial documents along with their applications. Finally, to be more responsive to the COVID crisis, we extended the work-sharing program to workers considered essential to the boosting businesses, like those engaged in product development and marketing.

As I mentioned at the beginning, the work-sharing program has been very popular. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdowns in Canada, demand for agreements has risen nearly 4,000% compared with the last period of last year. As of October 20, 2020, Canada had over 3,500 work-sharing agreements in play involving over 115,000 workers. While the vast majority of these workers are receiving their work-sharing benefits without a hitch, some are unfortunately experiencing problems, as we heard from the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I want to state this for the record. As I stated on October 7, we are working very hard to fix that. Department officials are working day and night to get this job done. The workers from Princeville, Thetford Mines and Plessisville will get their due. They will not lose benefits as a result of this delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is: When will that happen?

We have the word of a Prime Minister who looked into the matter. These people have been receiving half their pay for weeks, since May and June. It is all well and good for the government to say that it is working hard, but it does not seem like it. For more than half the workers, the problem still has not been solved.

Are we going to have to start looking at each case and noting whether they are young workers or immigrant workers? Are we going to have to consider other reasons why their cases have not been resolved?

I do not want to get to that point, but I am going to have to. It is unacceptable that these workers have been deprived of half their wages since May and June when we know that the problem is a computer glitch. Surely there is someone, somewhere in this government who can find the problem.

I salute my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who said some really good things while he was reading the documents provided by the department. I am asking him to join me, to work hard and to push for these workers' cases to be resolved. They deserve to have us working on their behalf.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's frustration. I share his passion and commitment toward getting this issue resolved as quickly as humanly possible.

As I stated on October 7, we are reforming the EI system so that it reflects how work is evolving in Canada. We are going to reshape the system for a successful economic recovery and for the 21st century. In the meantime, we have simplified EI to help Canadian workers weather the pandemic, and this includes easy access to work sharing.

There is also a suite of new benefits that are helping Canadian workers bridge the gap after receiving the CERB. I am talking about the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, which were all passed into law on October 2.

We fully support Canadian workers. Our main goal is to help Canadians get through this crisis.

Health

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now I have been asking the government about why it failed to procure rapid tests for Canadians. Anybody who is watching this tonight would know that if they went out to get a rapid COVID test to get results within 15 minutes, they could not. The technology is not available, even though countries around the world have managed to provide this life-saving and economy-saving technology for their citizens. This is a huge failure on the part of the government. It is ridiculous, it is embarrassing and it is dangerous.

The interesting thing is that today, an article in The Canadian Press reported that the government has managed to somehow procure 100,000 units of a certain rapid test. I note that that is not even half of the basic demand of Toronto for one day's worth of testing. Today, The Canadian Press tried to contact Health Canada and tried to contact the minister's office to ask about who would be getting those tests and what criteria they would be using. The Canadian Press received no answer to that.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to do what his boss failed to do today and answer this. What criteria is the government using to distribute rapid tests, and who will be receiving the first tranche of tests and when?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, testing is a critical part of Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and rapid tests are a key tool in our government's testing and screening strategy.

Early in the pandemic, our government put into place mechanisms to allow Health Canada to carry out expedited reviews of testing devices through the interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19. Health Canada regulatory scientists are working around the clock to give Canadians, and our health care system, access to as many testing options as possible, as quickly as possible, without compromising safety. Canada has one of the best regulatory systems for medical devices in the world. Health Canada takes steps to ensure that the safety, efficacy and quality requirements for medical devices are met before granting an authorization.

Health Canada is currently reviewing applications for authorization for rapid testing screening tests and will continue to prioritize innovative new screening tools. The department has also assigned more reviewers to the task to speed up the review process, and has published service standards. Our government follows new technologies closely and, when we hear of promising new tests that are not yet available in Canada, we get proactive and we reach out to manufacturers to find out if they are interested in entering the Canadian market. Since March, Health Canada has authorized 41 tests under the interim order, including both PCR and rapid tests. We have also been working hard, at home and abroad, to secure the necessary equipment and supplies, including tests, to support the COVID-19 response.

Our government is working hand in hand with the provinces and territories to ramp up testing capacity. We have provided provinces and territories with $4.28 billion to support them with the costs of increasing their capacity to conduct testing, to perform contact tracing and to share public health data that will help fight this pandemic.

In addition, we always base our decisions on scientific facts. In early October, the Government of Canada, working with provinces and territories, released a series of policy briefs that build on lessons learned and take into account new screening technologies. Based on a solid foundation of the most recent scientific knowledge and data in public health, the following guidance documents have been prepared or updated: Pan-Canadian COVID-19 Testing and Screening Guidance, interim guidance on the use of rapid antigen detection tests, and the updated guidance document on indications for PCR testing.

PCR tests remain the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19. However, we recognize the arrival of new screening technologies in an evolving environment that offer complementary tools to PCR tests. For example, the new guidelines describe how antigen testing can be useful in routine outbreak surveillance as well as surveillance in high-risk settings, such as long-term care facilities and, of course, in rural and remote communities. Getting results quickly allows health care professionals to target and respond to new outbreaks by isolating sick people and initiating contact tracing, which helps reduce the spread of the disease.

We have recognized the value of rapid tests since the beginning of our pandemic response. That is why we signed agreements with Inter Medico to supply 1.2 million GeneXpert rapid tests and with Biomérieux Canada to supply almost 700,000 diagnostic test kits. More recently, as we heard through the House, on September 29 and October 6, our government signed agreements to buy two rapid tests from Abbott Diagnostics: up to 7.9 million ID NOW rapid point-of-care tests, and 20.5 million PanBio COVID-19 antigen rapid tests, to go to provinces and territories at no cost to them. Thousands of these tests will be in the hands of provinces and territories soon, and hundreds of thousands more will follow in the weeks to come.

We are making every effort to continue to buy and distribute rapid tests as soon as they are authorized, and this will contribute to our efforts to protect Canadians from COVID-19, which, of course, is our government's top priority.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obfuscation like that, and the member totally reading talking points off of his computer to answer a direct question that the media were interested in today, and that I am interested in, is why we are forcing a significant motion in the House of Commons tomorrow.

The Liberals have been filibustering at committee. They have been denying basic information that businesses and Canadians need to have, to plan. Who gets rapid tests, when and what criteria are used to determine that should be an answer that the parliamentary secretary, who gets a giant salary to come up with these answers, should be able to answer.

Just out of professional courtesy, he should not be reading a talking-points speech for an hour when he could be answering a basic question with, “I do not know, they did not tell me that” or, “I have no clue,” which is what I think the answer is.

I look forward to our debate tomorrow because enough is enough. I will ask one more time: Who gets the tests, and when?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government is pursuing every technology and every option for faster tests for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As soon as tests are approved for safe use in Canada, the government will do everything it can to see them deployed.

Health Canada undertakes a regulatory review of all new testing solutions as they become available and is working with companies across Canada and internationally to ensure rapid tests that are safe and effective are available in Canada as soon as possible. We are making every effort to expand and reinforce our testing tool box in order to advance Canada's response to COVID-19, protect the health of Canadians and support our economy.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak again about the commercial rent assistance program or, I should say, the flawed commercial rent assistance program.

On April 9, my colleague, the finance critic for the NDP, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and I put forward a proposal to the government to come up with a commercial rent assistance program to help those businesses that closed their doors for public health to get the help they needed so that they could get through the pandemic. Many of them are barely hanging on. They are either in arrears with their landlord, steeped in debt, looking at bankruptcy or have closed their doors, but they could possibly reopen if the government fixed its flawed, poorly designed program that excluded many.

We need a program that is tenant-driven, is set in the same loss in business centres as the wage subsidy and is backdated to the beginning of the program, so that people who were excluded because their landlord would not apply could actually apply to the program and get access to the same funds that their neighbour might have gotten. At the end of the day, we are running this huge deficit to help people get through this, and it is absolutely unfair to those who are excluded because of a technicality to be responsible, or their children or grandchildren, for paying back the deficit while not getting access to those funds.

It is ironic that we are having this conversation today, because the Conservatives put forward a motion that would have triggered an election, since the government decided it was a confidence motion. Both parties were willing to go to an election, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of businesses are waiting for help.

The government announced on October 9 that it would revise the program and come back and help Canadians with an expanded CEBA, a wage subsidy that would be extended throughout the winter and into the spring, and a fix for this broken rent program. What does it do? It puts all of those businesses on the brink. The Liberals promised help and then threatened to go to an election, which means it would have been months before these businesses would have gotten the help they needed, and we would have seen a colossal collapse of small businesses across this country because of power-hungry parties. We are here to help people.

Dan Kelly from CFIB said today, “Absolutely critical that all political parties pull together and get the rent subsidy (CERS), CEBA loan expansion and wage subsidy (CEWS) extension across the parliamentary finish line.”

Let us get the business support package passed quickly. We need to know when that package is coming.

Mark Chandler from Parksville who owns Five Star Wholesale said, “My landlord chose not to bother with the paperwork on this. My company spent over $10,000 with no relief. The plaza next door had landlord support and to me that's frustrating. We should be dealing direct on this and not at the discretion of the landlord.”

How right is he? He has been excluded. He is running debt to pay his rent. Like many, he is in arrears.

Lisa Bernard Christensen from Courtenay cites, “My landlord agreed to try to apply after I was giving notice. Too little too late. I needed it three or four months ago. Now the damage is done.”

We have made a mistake. The Liberals have left these people out. They have excluded companies like All Mex'd Up Taco Shop in Port Alberni in my riding. It was excluded because it rents from the City of Port Alberni. The City of Port Alberni was excluded from applying; therefore, its tenants were excluded from applying. This business has been penalized because it rents from a local government.

This is unfair. This has to be fixed, and the sense or urgency could not be greater. The Liberals need to get some legislation tabled yesterday. I am glad that we voted not to send Canadians to an election and leave these small businesses hanging. They cannot be hanging on any longer.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity today to visit three main street businesses in Windsor—Tecumseh to celebrate small business week. I spoke with Michelle from Formally Yours, Kristina from Green Envy and Cathy from Artessa. They are three amazing business owners with wonderful businesses.

Canadian businesses like these are the lifeblood of our communities and the backbone of the economy. In 2017, almost 70% of all private sector employees, 8.3 million people, worked for small businesses. That is why our government has been committed to helping businesses face the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, including assisting them with business costs that they cannot defer, such as rent.

In April, the government introduced the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, CECRA, for small businesses. This program, offered in partnership with the provinces and territories, is administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Since its launch, CECRA has helped over 135,000 small business tenants who employ more than 1.2 million Canadians by providing some $2 billion to pay rent.

CECRA funding has been provided to a broad cross-section of Canadian small businesses in all provinces and territories, including retail, food services, education, health care, arts and entertainment sectors, helping them make their rent payments. With an average monthly rent of $7,000 and over 85% of the assisted businesses employing, on average, fewer than eight employees, this program has truly helped Canada's smallest businesses stay open.

I want to take a moment to thank the many property owners who have offered flexibility to their tenants or taken action to help them during this crisis, either through CECRA or by some other way. This has allowed tens of thousands of storefronts to remain open, helping to keep retail districts looking as normal as possible during this difficult period.

Initially intended to assist with rent payments for April, May and June, the program was extended to give hard-hit businesses help to cover rent into September. CECRA participants can apply until October 30 for the July to September extension.

In last month's Speech from the Throne, the government committed to take further steps to help businesses that are in trouble to get through to the other side of the pandemic. On October 9, the government announced its intention to introduce a new Canada emergency rent subsidy. This new program aims to allow businesses and other organizations that have suffered a decrease in income in this crisis to access rent and mortgage assistance until June 2021. This grant would be available to businesses and other organizations paying to occupy their premises. It would be offered directly to tenants, but would also support the owners of the buildings concerned.

The same day, the government also proposed to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy to June 2021 to help businesses and other employers keep their employees on the payroll. This measure is part of the government's commitment to create over one million jobs and restore employment to the level it was before the pandemic.

In the face of an uncertain economic situation and tightening credit conditions, these measures have supported businesses while protecting the jobs Canadians depend on, helping small businesses get through the worst parts of the pandemic.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is patting himself on the back. I am glad to hear Michelle, Kristina and Cathy are getting help, but Mark, Lisa and the owners of All Mex'd Up have gotten no help. They are being left out high and dry.

The member is talking about how the application closes on October 30, but they cannot apply because they are excluded. They should be able to access the 50% of provincial and federal funding that is out there. We are heading into a second wave. These businesses need help now. I hope that legislation is getting tabled tomorrow.

He talked about how this program went through the CMHC. Everybody is still wondering why it had to be a landlord-driven program or why initially one had to have a mortgage. We know why. There were links to the husband of the chief of staff of the Liberal Party. Rob Silver, who owns a mortgage company, is the agent for their flawed, broken program.

I hope the next program does not have another friend of the Liberals delivering a failed design that is going to wipe people out. They need help now and I hope the member will do everything he can to help them.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said already, Canadian businesses are the backbone of our economy and they provide good jobs that support families across the country. Since March we have implemented several programs to help businesses large and small to weather the storm through Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, which has provided urgent and broad based support where it is needed. While many businesses have now reopened, most are still not operating at full capacity and many are concerned about the uncertainty the second wave has created.

We will continue to help Canadian businesses and the Canadians they employ get back on their feet. Extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy and proposing a new Canada emergency rent subsidy are critical steps, are concrete steps to help Canadian businesses and other organizations stay afloat so they can build back stronger.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:18 p.m.)