House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was businesses.

Topics

Broadcasting ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Human RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition highlighting the plight of Uighur Muslims in China and calling for the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions against the officials who are responsible for what is going on.

Genetically Modified FoodsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present today electronic petition No. 2416. The petitioners note that genetically modified foods are not labelled and consumers have no way of knowing if what they are purchasing contains genetically modified organisms or not. They cite evidence from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer that suggests there are unlabelled probable human carcinogens in our foods. As a result, the petitioners are asking the House, Parliament and the government to take action to ensure that products that contain GMOs are labelled, so consumers can exercise choice.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

moved:

That, given that the pandemic has had devastating consequences on Canadian workers and businesses, especially in the restaurant, hospitality and tourism sectors, the House call on the government to: (a) immediately pause the audits of small businesses that received the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy until at least June 2021; and (b) provide additional flexibility in the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, and other support program.

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honour to lead today's debate on our opposition motion. It calls on the government to delay audits for small businesses until after next year's tax season. It also calls on the government to immediately introduce legislation to enact small business support and ensure these supports are flexible enough that they actually reach the small businesses they are supposed to help.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

As each province and municipality enacted emergency health orders, businesses were required to close their doors. The restaurant, hospitality and tourism sectors were especially hard hit. The small businesses in these and other sectors are the lifeblood of our communities. They are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and the owners, workers and customers of these small businesses are our neighbours and our friends.

When governments issue orders that require businesses to close their doors and lose money, these businesses have a reasonable expectation of receiving support from their government, and that is why my Conservative colleagues have worked with the government to pass various support measures as quickly as possible. It is also why we have spent the last seven months pointing out problems with some of these support measures and offering alternative suggestions, hoping that this government would get it right and have the courage to admit when it has made mistakes, and that it would work with opposition parties, and its own backbenchers, to ensure it created the most effective and most efficient programs possible.

When we left this place in the second week of March and returned to our constituencies, we were all immediately inundated with calls for help from constituents concerned about their safety, their health, their jobs and their savings. We heard from thousands of small business owners who were concerned about the fate of their businesses.

In my riding, I met a travel agency operator. Since the pandemic hit, her revenue is down 96%, and that does not even include the fact that she has to refund most of the money she earned last year, as people are receiving refunds for trips booked previously. She is exhausting her business and personal savings, extending her credit and laying off loyal, hard-working employees. There is no end in sight.

I heard from Anna, a constituent who owns a pizza takeout kiosk in a downtown office tower. Her business was already threatened by thousands of pre-COVID energy layoffs in the very tower she is located. With the remaining nearby offices' workers mostly working from home now, she is down to a couple of dozen people a day walking past her stall. The impacts of COVID are absolutely devastating to these business operators.

I heard from a wedding officiant who is an independent contractor and does not have a business account. She could not access the CEBA program for months. She knew she was losing an entire wedding season, and she needed help in the spring.

I heard from a constituent who operates an online industry trade publication. He had recently made significant investments in his business, and even though his revenue was collapsing, he did not qualify for federal supports back in the spring.

I heard from Susan, a partner in a small oil and gas exploration company. She endured endless bureaucratic delays in trying to access the BCAP program, despite being on the threshold of receiving conventional funding on the eve of the pandemic and despite meeting all the criteria under that program.

Each of these small business owners supports a family. Most employ a whole team of dedicated employees, who are their loyal friends. The desperation and frustration in these calls, and many other calls, has been palpable. People who have worked for years to build up a business are seeing their life’s work vanish before their eyes.

The coronavirus is a threat to public health and safety. That cannot be ignored. We know that, and we agree that all levels of government have a responsibility to ensure the safety of Canadians, but that responsibility also includes the need for a plan for economic survival for the small business community. This is why my Conservative colleagues and I are asking the House to consider these three points today. Small businesses need breathing room. They also need immediate assurance that they will receive appropriate government support while public health advice is harming their businesses, and they need programs that will be flexible enough that they are actually accessible to businesses when they need them.

Tax compliance is hard enough on small businesses, and we have heard that the CRA is aggressively auditing some small businesses that are receiving the wage subsidy. They are immediately being told to produce large amounts of documentation with almost no notice. Small businesses do not have time to deal with onerous requests when they are in survival mode, which is why we are calling upon the government to delay compliance audits for the wage subsidy until after next year's tax season, until at least June 2021.

Prior to being elected, I was a small business owner, and many of my clients were also small business owners. I know what a letter from the CRA does to a small business owner. The mere fact of receiving a request for documents is enough to ruin a whole productive day for a small business owner. There is the initial anxiety of the request, followed by frantic calls to the accountant and lawyer, and the hollow-sounding assurances that these things are just routine and not a big deal.

There are then further scrambles to find what is being demanded, usually with only a few days notice. Some of the documents that are being requested in the wage subsidy audits are the same ones that small business owners would typically have to gather in the course of preparation for their 2020 return anyway, which is why next June would be a more appropriate time to commence wage subsidy audits on small businesses.

The second thing we called upon the government to do when we put this motion on notice was to immediately introduce legislation to enact promised extensions and amendments to support programs. The fact that the government has done so without waiting for a vote is welcomed, but it was long overdue. The government knew that its failed rent subsidy program was coming to an end in September. It knew that its wage subsidy program was ending in the fall, and it knew that other programs, such as CEBA and BCAP, have problems that are well known.

However, instead of coming into this fall session with legislation ready to go in September, this government, mired in its own conflicts of interest and scandal, prorogued the House in August and seemingly did no advance work on necessary legislative changes. The Liberals came into September with a recycled throne speech and some vague hints about how they might address aid for small businesses. They then waited until after an opposition motion was on notice to introduce measures into the House. Desperate small business owners and workers have been waiting for details for months.

Finally, we are calling on the government to ensure that aid programs actually reach the small businesses that need them. The government's original rent subsidy program failed most small businesses, and it was panned by tenants and landlords alike. The government knows and has acknowledged that its initial approach to rent subsidy was a failed approach. Other programs, such as CEBA and BCAP, also had problems, and opposition members raised concerns about these programs months ago. While some issues were dealt with along the way, some were not.

This government now has an opportunity to get it right. It can do so by taking the time to listen to opposition MPs when we debate Bill C-9, because the Conservative caucus always stands up for small businesses. We have their backs.

We were there standing up for small businesses when this government went to war with them in 2017 with draconian tax changes. We were there standing up for small businesses when the Prime Minister said they were just a way for wealthy people to avoid paying taxes. We were there when Bill Morneau said that wealthy Canadians use complex corporate structures to avoid taxes, while he himself continued to own shares in a company that he regulated through a complex web of private companies.

We were there standing up for small businesses when this government imposed taxes that were particularly hard on restaurants, tourism and the hospitality industry, such as the escalator tax on alcohol, higher payroll taxes and, of course, the carbon tax. We have been with them since March, and we have been there ensuring that aid measures for small business passed expeditiously. We have worked with the government, and we have not held up legislation, but we have also been there making constructive recommendations to improve programs. We continue to stand with small businesses now.

We are calling upon the government to deal with the growing crisis of small businesses. Prior to COVID, the government failed to respect small businesses. During COVID, it has enacted programs that, in some cases, were poorly designed and difficult to access.

The government now has an opportunity to make amends, and show the small business community that it shares our Conservative support for the hard-working men and women, small business owners, and it can do so today by standing with the opposition in support of this motion.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong in many ways. The government has been recognizing the valuable role that small businesses play for the country by being the backbone of a lot of the jobs that were created pre-pandemic. We have seen small businesses working with the government, creating over a million jobs, which is far greater than the previous administration did in nine years.

In regard to the pandemic, we have consistently been working alongside small businesses. That is why we saw the implementation of programs such as the wage subsidy program and the rent relief program. We continue to work with small businesses, consulting with them every day to make sure that we are trying to meet their needs, to the best of our abilities.

Can the member opposite inform the House what he would like to see the government do about small businesses, specifically with regard to the motion?

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the first thing the government can do is to stop treating small business owners like tax cheaters; to stop auditing them, to stop asking for onerous documentation while they are in survival mode and trying to cope with the pandemic and actually survive. It would be a welcome relief to small business owners to be shown some respect from the government that has treated them so poorly over the years.

I will leave it at that and hope that we can get more people involved in the debate than just the member for Winnipeg North.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, on the whole, we agree with the motion. There have been promises we have agreed with, but there was too much hemming and hawing, and things were taking too long. On the whole, we agree with the motion, which is asking the government to get serious.

As everyone knows, the emergency wage subsidy was meant to help people in emergency situations. It was not supposed to help parties that were rolling in dough. The Conservatives moved today's motion, and we know that both of their leadership candidates suggested reimbursing the money. They promised to reimburse it. Nobody really expects the Liberals to do so.

What have the Conservatives done to keep that promise?

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I am not going to talk about political parties today. I am here to talk about workers in small businesses.

Small business workers need to be able to keep their jobs and to be able to remain in their jobs. This was a failure of these programs in that the emergency response benefit was greatly oversubscribed at a time when the wage subsidy was under-subscribed. This shows how the programs themselves were a failure to the small business community that struggled to keep workers employed.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, as much as I appreciated the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge's speech, the one thing he did say is that Conservatives have always been there for small business people. Like him, I was a small businesses owner in 2008, and the Conservatives were definitely not there for small business people. They were there for big banks and big corporations.

Given that the Liberals have rolled out this flawed design program of the Canada emergency rent assistance program and given that they are going to fix it, as they admitted they were wrong, does my colleague agree that the Liberals should be rolling out legislation to backdate the fix to April 1, for those who did not get the help that they need, so that small businesses are not left out? If their landlord did not apply for a program, they should still be eligible, like everybody else. Does my colleague agree that the Liberals should fix this and backdate it right now?

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the member raises a good point. The former program failed small businesses. I do not know how many businesses have actually failed over the spring and summer or how many may be on the verge of failing because of the failure of that program.

He raises a valid point and I hope the government will listen to opposition MPs and create the best program it can for small business owners.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, who is the small business critic.

I had the opportunity to speak with him and my other colleagues on a regular basis throughout the summer, when we were just as present, even virtually, for small and medium-sized businesses in our respective ridings.

In my riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, I organized round tables, together with my riding's chambers of commerce, which I want to thank, business people and municipalities affected by COVID-19. I wanted to pass along all available information to my constituents. I also wanted to support them as much as possible as they navigated the programs they were eligible for.

As a business owner, I would like to take this opportunity today to thank all the employees of our businesses, who, like us business owners, have been upended by the pandemic. I want to thank them on behalf of all business owners in Canada and Quebec.

Since I am still a business owner, I want to thank my employees and my business partner, who have managed to navigate these turbulent times. Most of our employees have returned to work, but not without making some concessions, particularly in terms of working hours, to help the company weather the storm of the 2020 pandemic. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

As a business owner myself, I can attest that it is hard to make plans during a pandemic. Back in March, we hoped that all the closures would have the desired effect, namely, to flatten the curve, that we would be in lockdown for only a few weeks and that, hopefully, the pandemic would end quickly, as Canada managed to achieve during the SARS crisis in 2003.

Unfortunately, the pandemic continues. Weeks have turned into months. Although I represent a semi-rural riding, far from any big cities, the second wave is now hitting even harder than the first, during which my riding was largely spared.

Unfortunately, we learned last weekend that Montmagny RCM and L'Islet RCM had become red zones, much like the entire Chaudière-Appalaches region, I might add. Many business owners in that region have felt or will feel discouraged—and I can relate—especially those in the restaurant, bar, tourism and event industries.

Believe it or not, there was a shortage of workers in my riding before the pandemic. I realize how important it is for employers and employees to retain a relationship, so that they can be ready to go as soon as the economic recovery starts. I want to point out that there are more than 500 jobs still available in my riding as we speak. It is a bit ironic that so many people are claiming EI while many business owners are looking for employees.

Like many of my fellow Conservatives, I supported the Canada emergency wage benefit to help businesses keep their trained employees and be ready to fully resume operations as soon as the recovery begins. I was also critical of some aspects of the CERB that discouraged people from returning to work. I saw a few of these cases over the summer, and a number of business owners brought this up with me.

I remind members that, initially, people had to prove they had zero income if they wanted to qualify for CERB. That was completely ridiculous, because if someone had applied for $2,000 but agreed to work for one day for $100, they would lose the entire $2,000 for the month.

The opposition parties, employers, the media, everyone was quick to say that this made no sense. The government then made a change to allow workers to earn up to $1,000 a month. However, if they earned $1,001 they would lose the $2,000.

This summer, the Conservative Party was the only party to propose an alternative plan based on the principle of working while on claim. We had similar changes made to employment insurance under the Harper government. We believe that the government should never discourage work and that each dollar earned from working could progressively reduce the benefit received without eliminating it completely, as is the case under the Liberal plan. It took six months, but with the return to the employment insurance system, the unemployed were at least able to benefit from the flexibility that was lost during the summer. In the context of a minority government, we, as an opposition party, managed to get the government to make policy changes.

I also pointed out the flaws in the Canada emergency business account, whose complicated rules excluded many small businesses that did not necessarily have the revenue or major corporate bank account required by the government and Canadian financial institutions.

We identified these issues and it is mostly thanks to our actions that the government finally offered more flexibility. We are calling for the same thing again now.

The many changes may also be causing more confusion. The laws passed by this Parliament often contained provisions that enabled the minister or the Governor in Council to change these criteria through regulations. SMEs that do not have an accountant or tax expert on staff and that do not always have the resources necessary to seek such services took advantage of various government assistance programs by interpreting the criteria as best they could.

What is more, these criteria changed almost every day. It is important to remember that at the daily press conferences in April, May and June, the interpretation of some criteria may have differed and the way they were applied may have changed. The fact that all of these criteria and conditions were changing on a regular basis made things more complicated.

In that regard, I recognize that the government has a completely legitimate role to play in terms of oversight, to ensure that the programs are delivered properly. In some cases, however, we were the first to speak out against the government for ordering its employees to give people the CERB when there might have been fraud involved.

I wonder about that same government's choice to start by going after Canada emergency wage benefit applicants, who say they have already been contacted by the Canada Revenue Agency. These are businesses that have been bending over backward for eight months now. Many of these entrepreneurs have had to work in their employees' stead to keep the business alive. They have made considerable investments to reopen safely and comply with social distancing standards during the pandemic.

Now that we are in the second wave, these businesses are once again starting to worry about their future. What is the government doing to thank them? It is sending CRA officials to check their books. We are not out of the woods yet. I myself am a business person, and businesses clearly do not have time to deal with that right now in the middle of a pandemic. This is not the time to be asking businesses for accountability when they are struggling to stay afloat. There is a better time for that, and we want it postponed until at least next June. We have to let a year go by from when people began to receive or had access to various forms of government assistance.

Today, despite government measures, there are many sectors where things are very tough and where the fall and winter will be especially difficult. I am thinking of the tourism and events industries. There are many event management companies that are about to go bankrupt. They have lost 95% or 98% of their revenue and a business that has no revenue cannot make it.

The government must understand that it must give companies the space they need and far greater flexibility so they can at least survive the fall and winter.

In the past, countless businesses or professionals did not have access to the CERB or the Canada emergency business account for the simple reason that they were using a personal account rather than a business account for their banking. We worked on that the whole summer, and I remember that different committees had Zoom meetings to ensure that these people could become eligible. It took months and months for that to happen.

There are still problems today. I will ask a question about a company that was bought during or just before the pandemic and whose new owner is not eligible for assistance programs because the company is no longer associated with the former owner. That is just ridiculous.

Life continued on for businesses during the pandemic. Owners buy and sell assets and shares to survive. Business owners must be eligible for the government's programs.

I obviously support my colleague's motion calling on the government to immediately pause the audits of small businesses that received the Canada emergency wage subsidy until at least June 2021. I urge the opposition parties and my colleagues on both sides to continue to help businesses and SMEs, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I have been a business owner, and I am very proud of that. We must continue to support these businesses.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I am having a lot of trouble squaring the conflicting ways the Conservatives are looking at audits during a pandemic. On one hand they are asking the civil service to provide thousands of pages of documents to review in the middle of the pandemic, then not reviewing the documents, and on the other hand they are saying that people are cheating the system with the CERB payments by staying at home, not wanting to work.

We are in the middle of trying to deliver services to small businesses, and we are working together across party lines on this. However, the hon. members are asking us to stop midstream and interrupt the work of the CRA, which is doing small-scale audits to make sure we are on track. To audit or not to audit seems to be the question this morning.

Can the hon. member help me understand why in one case they want to do deep dive audits, and on the other hand they do not want to do audits?

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is comparing apples to oranges.

We are talking about all of the businesses that make up the Canadian economy and we are asking the government to leave them alone for a few months. We know that the Liberals have called them cheaters and thieves in the past, but we do not feel that way. These businesses keep the Canadian economy going.

The member and his party gave $1 billion to an organization that was not prepared to manage it. The documents they are asking for have nothing to do with those we are requesting. We are calling on the government to give small businesses a break. These are two completely different things. The Liberals are the ones who caused the WE Charity scandal and all of the documents they should be handing over. It is important for the House of Commons to have these documents.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, let's talk about scandal.

In his speech, my hon. colleague referred to the CERB and the many people who fell through the cracks. We agree with him. Could he answer the question posed by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot?

The Liberals clearly said that they would not pay back the CERB they collected. What about the Conservatives?

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, the political parties made decisions during the pandemic. The Liberals decided to take the wage subsidy. We, too, decided to take it, but then we later stopped. I think that those were important decisions that all organizations across the country, both political and volunteer, had to make at that time to ensure their survival and continued existence. We need to look at those decisions to make sure that things are done differently in the future.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, we agree with the Conservatives that the legislation being tabled tomorrow should have been tabled in the summer. However, the Liberals chose to prorogue Parliament.

The other day, the Liberals made an opposition day motion a motion of confidence that could have forced an election before any small business owners got the desperate support they need. We do not even know when they are going to get support in the legislation being tabled tomorrow. Does my colleague believe it was an irresponsible and shameful decision by the Liberals to have a confidence motion?

We heard from Dan Kelly, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, on that day. He stated that it is “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.”

Does the member not agree that Canadians should expect parliamentarians to come together at a time like this, in a pandemic, and provide the necessary support for those who close their doors to protect public health? They are small business owners and their workers. We need to give them the support they need, immediately.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, as an entrepreneur, I cannot help but agree with someone who wants to support all entrepreneurs in Canada. Whatever the area of activity, I think it is important for the government to understand that. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, just published a survey that shows that 75% of business were open full time two weeks ago but now that percentage has now dropped to 69%. A significant number of businesses are putting on the brakes. That will inevitably have a major impact on the Canadian economy in the coming months.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Liberal

Sean Fraser LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the motion.

We are living in extraordinarily difficulty times. COVID-19 obviously represents the greatest public health emergency we have seen in our lifetimes. However, it also represents the greatest economic shock we have seen in generations, perhaps only rivalled by the Great Depression regarding its magnitude in the history of our nation. How we respond to this pandemic will dictate what our country looks like a year from now, two years from now or 10 years from now. We must have the courage to take actions, as difficult or as challenging as they may be, to allow households and businesses to survive this pandemic so they are still there to contribute to the economy on the back end.

Over the past eight months or so, I have had too many phone calls with business owners and workers who have been concerned about their well-being, and the well-being of their employees and families. I do not like being on the phone with parents who do not know how they will feed their kids. I do not like being on the phone with neighbours who fear they are going to lose their home. I do not like being on the phone with business owners who are worried the business they have built up over their lifetime is at risk of disappearing forever.

As much as I do not like being on the other end of those phone calls, I am so privileged to have the opportunity to do something to help those in need. I do not know that in my life I have ever done work as meaningful as I have over these recent months to help keep people fed, housed and on the payroll wherever possible.

A big part of our response has been to advance benefits and supports to businesses in a manner and to a degree that Canadians have never seen. Some of those business supports are the subject of the opposition motion on the floor today.

Over the course of my remarks, I am going to discuss the nature of the economic crisis facing Canadians and explain why now is the time to make these kinds of investments. I plan to outline some of the responses we have put forward to help support businesses to date and demonstrate that they are showing signs they are starting to work, keeping people afloat during their time of need. Finally, I will deal with my objections to the motion, which largely deal with the fact that it is calling on the government to do something it has already done.

I kicked off my remarks by drawing attention to the severity of the public health and economic challenge before us. Let me say, before I get into a discussion of business supports, that the most important economic policy we can adopt is to protect the health and well-being of Canadians and our communities. We will not see an economic recovery if we do not address the public health threat before us.

The recession we are facing is not like other economic crises we have seen in the past. In 2008, for example, there was a fundamental problem with the financial system globally, primarily in the United States. That, of course, had a serious spillover effect into Canada. Now we are dealing with an exogenous shock to our economic system. It is temporary, but it is severe. The threat we are facing is caused by a threat to our public health in the form of a virus that we need to stomp out if we are going to see an economic recovery.

Effectively, we have a supply-and-demand side shock going on. Businesses have been shut down because of public health measures. Sometimes it has been mandatory and sometimes businesses have done it in a voluntary way to protect the health of their employees and customers.

Of course, on the other side of the equation we have customers who are not going out to businesses because they are afraid. They are afraid to travel. They are afraid to dine in enclosed spaces. They are afraid to go to entertainment venues. The consequences of the supply-and-demand side shocks that we are seeing are that businesses are producing fewer goods and services and customers are purchasing fewer goods and services. The Canadian economy is suffering as a result.

We made a decision that we were going to step in to ensure that the consequences of this economic slowdown would be mitigated and that the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy would remain positive. We can afford to make the kinds of investments necessary to float businesses and households through this emergency. In fact, I do not know that we can afford not to. If we do not choose to advance substantive supports for businesses and households at this point in our history, the costs will be borne out in the lives of our loved ones. We will see businesses shut their doors. We will see jobs leave and maybe never come back.

If we make the investments to keep households and businesses as close to whole as possible throughout this entire ordeal, we can limit long-term economic scarring. We can protect the long-term interests of the Canadian economy and, more importantly, the Canadians who take part in it.

The reason that now is the time to invest is, first, there is a need, which I think I have established by now. Second, we really can afford to do this at this point in our history.

We are dealing with a historic situation. We entered this pandemic with the strongest fiscal capacity of any developed economy in the G7, and we have used that fiscal capacity to deliver for households and businesses. We do not just have the fiscal capacity to respond. We are dealing with historically low interest rates globally and here in Canada as well. The fact is that we can finance the recovery effort at a rate that most would not have thought possible just a short time ago. We can lock in long-term low interest rates that will help ensure households and businesses can survive during this time of unprecedented uncertainty. In fact, the cost of servicing the much larger debt that we have today is lower by several billion dollars than it was about eight months ago, because our interest rate is at the effective lower bound.

Making these investments is not just something we can do; it is the smart thing to do. I direct members to the comments of the chief economist of the IMF, who is on leave from Harvard University's Department of Economics. She stated, “For the many countries that find themselves at the effective lower bound of interest rates”, which Canada is at, “fiscal stimulus is not just economically sound policy, but also the fiscally responsible thing to do.”

I would like to take some time to outline how some of our fiscal stimulus has been designed in a way to respond to specific needs that Canadian businesses are facing.

When we first realized the impact that this pandemic could have on the Canadian economy, we made a decision that households and small businesses were too big to fail. We wanted to protect their interests because they serve Canada's interests. The programs we have put forward are not based on some rigid economic ideology. They are designed to solve very specific problems that my constituents were calling me about. I know the constituents of every MP in the House were calling their offices as well.

I had the opportunity to speak with my parliamentary colleagues from different partisan backgrounds, from every region in Canada. The feedback I heard largely mirrored the feedback I was hearing at home. The same thing is true of the stakeholder engagements that the government undertook, including many of the calls that I personally took part in, with chambers of commerce, business associations and local small business owners.

At the outset we realized that a lot of people were at risk of losing their income who did not necessary qualify for EI, including self-employed Canadians. We advanced the Canada emergency response benefit to make sure that people could afford the basics, even when their job was causing them to lose income or their business was shutting down temporarily or perhaps even permanently.

We launched the Canada emergency wage subsidy because businesses were telling us that if they did not have support to keep workers on the payroll, they would have to lay them off. The panic I heard in the voices of local business owners when they realized the impact of this pandemic was going to be felt by their employees is something that will stick with me forever.

We launched the Canada emergency business account to respond to the concerns about paying monthly bills, such as electricity, heat, Internet and phone bills at businesses. This helped them literally keep the lights on.

When we realized there was a crunch coming for rent for commercial properties, we initially launched the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. Now, in response to feedback, we have moved forward with the Canada emergency rent subsidy, which will provide direct support to tenants who were suffering from an inability to cover their rent during this pandemic.

There is a series of other measures. We realized that we needed to get cash into the economy to ensure that businesses could meet their needs, whether it was dealing with equipment and materials they had on order or covering larger monthly expenses. We did this by advancing the business credit availability program. We did this by working with banks, including the Bank of Canada, to discuss lowering the domestic stability buffer. We did this by delaying remittances. We thought of every existing mechanism we had to keep cash in the hands of businesses rather than insisting they give cash to the government. This was a strategy that was important to adopt at the time.

I think back to the testimony that was given by Kevin Milligan: a professor of economics at the University of British Columbia who has since been brought in to advise the government. When he attended at the finance committee, he made the point that the pandemic has created significant costs. It was not a decision by the government of whether we should bear those costs, it was a decision by the government of who should bear those costs.

If the government decided not to advance the kinds of programs I have just described, those costs would have been passed on to households and businesses. They would have been demonstrated by households defaulting on their mortgages. They would have been demonstrated by parents not being able to buy groceries for their kids. They would have been demonstrated by businesses laying off workers, perhaps permanently. They would have been demonstrated by businesses potentially being shuttered forever.

We made the decision that the federal government should take advantage of its ability to borrow at historically low interest rates and use the fiscal firepower that it had, because it had been responsible in managing the nation's economic affairs to make sure that the government stepped in and supported Canadians during their time of need. The results of these investments are starting to show themselves, and they are positive.

If I look at the road to recovery, though we may have a long way to go and though we are certainly still living in the midst of a public health and economic emergency, there is no question in my mind that the businesses that have received these supports are better off and potentially still here today because of those supports.

If I compare us to the United States with a geographic proximity that is significant given the way the virus has spread, I can see that our response has been largely successful. To date, 76% of the jobs that went missing during this pandemic have come back. We still have a way to go to reach our 2019 levels of employment, but we are going to get there because we are going to continue to be there for Canadian households and businesses.

The 76% recovery in Canada compares with a 52% return of lost jobs in the United States. I direct everyone's attention to a recent report from TD Bank, which stated, “No matter how you slice the data, the Canadian labour market has been on a steadier road to recovery relative to the U.S.” The report concluded by suggesting that the old adage, “When the U.S. sneezes, Canada catches a cold,” ought to be changed to, “When the U.S. sneezes, Canada builds antibodies.”

The reality is that this approach is not based on ideology. It is in response to specific needs we are hearing directly from stakeholders, and it mirrors the advice we have received from leading economic experts: the IMF, the Bank of Canada, the World Bank, leading Canadians banks, business associations right here in Canada and, in fact, community members in my backyard who run businesses. Their advice has been that we need to be there in the short term to allow businesses to stay here in the long term.

Turning my attention to the motion before the House of Commons today, my objections to it exist on a number of bases. First and foremost, the motion calls on the government largely to do something that it accomplished yesterday: introduce flexibility in the wage subsidy and Canada emergency rent subsidy programs.

I note, in particular, the wage subsidy has now been extended through to next June. It is going to continue to allow employers to maintain a connection with their employees not only so they continue to have a source of income, but also so that the connection is there on the back end of this pandemic. It is going to benefit employees, who will maintain jobs, and it is going to benefit employers who will not have to look for new labour, will not have to deal with retraining and will have ready access to workers when it is safe to return to work and when orders have returned to full volume.

Some of the changes that have been made to this wage subsidy show the flexibility that we have been willing to implement, whether it was the initial shift from 10% to 75%, the expansion of certain eligibility criteria so more organizations would qualify, or the introduction of a sliding scale so all businesses that had suffered a revenue loss had something to gain from this program rather than experiencing a cliff that would have maintained an incentive for businesses not to recover to the fullest of their ability.

As well, the new Canada emergency rent subsidy is a significant program that responds directly to the feedback we have heard from Canadian businesses. This is going to provide a new, simple, easy-to-access support. It is going to allow tenants to apply directly to the program to get the support they need literally to keep the doors open. It is going to provide support of up to 65% of their monthly rent expenses. For businesses that have been mandated to shut down as a result of a public health order, it is going to provide further lockdown support of up to 25% of their rent to ensure that they can weather the storm of this pandemic.

The motion suffers from an additional defect in that it asks for the suspension of audits altogether. The reality is these are perhaps the most significant economic supports that have been directly provided by a federal government in a very long time: generations, in fact. The idea that the CRA, which operates at arm's length from the government, should be told not to conduct the audits that it determines are necessary to ensure the integrity of the program is not in accordance with best practices and does not protect the public interest in making sure that the benefits accrue to those who are eligible rather than extending them to those who do not qualify, which could in fact put business owners in quite a bind if they are given benefits and not told very shortly thereafter that they were not eligible in the first place.

The other problem I have with the motion is that there is a tacit implication that the government has not been flexible in its approach to date, when it comes to specific emergency programs or perhaps emergency programs more broadly. From my conversations at home, as much as people appreciated CERB in the early days of the pandemic, or businesses appreciated the wage subsidy, the emergency business account or the slew of other government programs we put forward to help Canadians during their time of need, perhaps the most cited positive feedback was the government's willingness to listen and to adapt its programs to the needs of those who did not fit in, in the first instance.

I mentioned initially the fact that the wage subsidy shifted from 10% to 75%, and that we expanded the eligibility criteria to different classes of organizations and different kinds of businesses because of the transactions they had in the year before so we could properly adjust their supports to mirror the financial situations they found themselves in.

When I look across all the other programs, I look at the Canada emergency business account and remember that we shifted the payroll threshold. I remember we expanded it to businesses that used credit unions as opposed to traditional banks. I remember we made changes around payroll processing by third parties. I remember that we made changes to allow access for businesses that used personal accounts. Now we are expanding the program to make a greater loan with an additional forgivable portion, and we even created a new fund through the regional relief and recovery fund in Atlantic Canada, administered by ACOA, to ensure that businesses that did not qualify for those existing supports would have another path to choose should they need additional financial support to get through this emergency. The reality is we have been as flexible as possible because we continue to have conversations with those who have been impacted most by this pandemic.

I know that I am going to continue to have those kinds of phone calls that are difficult to make throughout this pandemic. I know that I am going to be dealing with businesses whose customers have not come back. The motion cites the restaurant industry, the hospitality sector and tourism operators. I have talked to campground operators. I have talked to travel agencies. I have talked to restaurants. I have talked to airlines. They have a presence in my community and they keep people working. They are telling me that they continue to need support whether with their rent, keeping their staff on the payroll or keeping the doors open, but most importantly they say we need to continue to fight this pandemic so we can put an end to the public health emergency that is causing their customers to be afraid.

We are going to continue to do whatever it takes to ensure that we protect the health and well-being of Canadians, that we eradicate COVID-19 from our communities to the best of our ability and that we continue to extend the kind of emergency supports that will help keep Canadian households and businesses afloat throughout this pandemic until it is finally over.

I would be pleased to take whatever questions my colleagues may have.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spent a lot of his speech talking about the need for support programs. No one is disputing that need. That is understood by everyone in the House. The motion deals with how the government has approached these programs and the needs of small businesses. I want to zero in on a point that the parliamentary secretary made in taking credit for the success of the government's programs in comparison to the United States. I would like him to comment on this.

The government has spent more money than any peer G7 country. Canada has spent the most, yet has the highest unemployment in the G7. How does he square that with the credit he is taking for the success of the government's programs?

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Madam Speaker, before I address the question, regarding the member's preamble that everyone in the House supports these kinds of business supports, I would direct him to comments of his own party's finance critic at the outset of this pandemic, who explained that the kinds of measures we were putting in place would not gain the support of the Conservative Party. He described them as “big, fat government programs” that did not seemingly serve his ideology, so I would dispute his preamble.

In any event, with respect to the question, the hon. member ought to know that, despite the fact that Canada may have a lower employment rate than some of our G7 comparators, it entered this pandemic with literally the lowest in the history of our nation since we started keeping track of those statistics in 1976.

The member is criticizing, seemingly, the fact that we have had the most ambitious support program when he talks about our spending. What he is really saying is that he does not support the fact that Canada has had the most aggressive COVID-19 economic response of any developed economy in the world.

If he is curious about the unemployment rates today, I think Canada is at 9.0% compared with about 8.6% in the United States. If he would like to make up that 0.4% by paying for it in the lives that have been lost in the United States, rather than the rates we have experienced in Canada, I invite him to show me which public health measures he would erode in Canada to put Canadians' health at risk in order for that 0.4% rate of unemployment to match Canada and the United—

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

Opposition Motion—Consequences of the Pandemic on Canadian Workers and BusinessesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, we just talked about the issues facing those who have been overlooked. We all agree that we participated in local tourism during this pandemic.

However, there are cries for help. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about a very specific industry that has an impact on tourism, and that is the aerospace industry.

What does the government intend to do and when?