Debates of Dec. 7th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Businesses

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

We have to proceed to the member to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciated what my colleague had to say at the end of his comments, as in other comments in the House earlier, regarding the need to continue to help people and to spend money to help real Canadians, real people. This government has spent significantly, I believe upward of $325 billion, to help real people. I hope the Conservatives remember that when they come back several months from now to say that it was too much. On this side of the House, we think the important thing to do right now is to continue to invest in Canadians.

I would like to come back to the carbon tax, only because I am not sure I fully understood my colleague's position on this very important point. I believe I heard him say that the price on pollution was not something the Conservative Party, or at least he, was against; that he was simply asking for a pause in the increase. Is it now the Conservative position that the price on pollution is a good idea?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is one of the best orators in the chamber, so I appreciate that.

No, that is not the Conservative Party's platform. With respect to this motion and only this motion, it is about the escalator. It is not about the carbon tax in total. I said that we could have that debate another day. In fact, I look forward to having that larger debate. With respect to the motion, it is an eminently reasonable proposal to stop the escalators during the pandemic.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, honestly, all of the rhetoric on the carbon tax this evening has been so destructive and boring that I might as well be at the dentist getting a root canal.

Even before the crisis, the Conservatives presented a number of motions to restrict the scope of the carbon tax. This has nothing to do with the crisis. Let's be frank: Eliminating the carbon tax will just encourage polluters. The oil and gas sector generates the most greenhouse gases in Canada. This is yet another attempt to support that industry.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this, because in the past four years, the oil and gas sector has received $24 billion. If he does not think that is enough, I think he needs to re-examine his priorities.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member does not have time for small business owners and farmers. I can show him bills from my farmers, which are tens of thousands of dollars. Farmers and business owners are barely able to survive. I am sorry we have taken him away from his other important duties. I have no idea what would be more important to him than the Canadian people, farmers, small business owners and workers. Quite frankly, I am disappointed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's last answer to be basically a rush to refuge in rhetoric to some very important points that were made by my hon. colleague and by the parliamentary secretary. I found myself confused by my hon. colleague's position as well.

This motion is a jumble of different taxes with different purposes. For instance, the carbon tax is something that is intended to help deal with the pressing issue of climate change, which is not stopping. In fact, it is accelerating and it is also an avoidable tax for many people

With respect to the Canada pension plan, there is only one way that people will have a secure retirement and that is to put away a bit of money for a long period of time. Any financial planner will tell us that this must be done all the time, through thick and thin. That is the only way we will have a well-funded retirement.

Could my hon. colleague clarify for the House if he is in favour of a carbon tax increase at any time or is he hiding behind this motion? The Conservative Party has a well-known aversion to any taxes at all for any purpose at all. Is he just using this motion to cover up that basic political philosophy?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am in favour of Canadians and I am in favour of the government getting out of the way. Canadians are the key to fighting climate change, are the key to fighting this pandemic and are they key to recovering our economy.

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

Madam Speaker, a good place to start is with the statement the member just made, that he believes the Canadian government needs to get out of the way. In fairness to the member, he is likely not alone. A lot of Conservatives have that sort of mentality, that the government needs to step aside and does not need to get engaged. I will highlight the difference between Conservative thinking quite often versus what the Liberals talk about.

When we think of the coronavirus and the pandemic, it is not unique just to Canada, as we all know; it is happening around the world. Different governments respond in a different fashion. People are very much aware that prior to the pandemic, the government's focus was on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Many of the policy initiatives were there to support Canada's middle class. Along came the pandemic and we did not forget the primary objective of the government, as mandated by our Prime Minister.

During the pandemic, I am sure people can understand and appreciate why the government needed to focus attention on that. I suspect there was a great deal of resistance by the Conservatives with respect to the degree the government needed to get involved. Therein lies a fundamental difference between the Government of Canada, headed by the Liberal Prime Minister, versus a Conservative opposition.

We understood how important it was to be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians and businesses. That is the reason we took the actions we did as early as we did. I believe most people in the chamber, especially with hindsight, would understand and appreciate why it was so important. We have even seen some facts that clearly demonstrate we are on the right track.

For example, if the government had not provided the supports back in March and April, what would have been different? Millions of Canadians would not have had the disposable income they required to pay their bills on a monthly basis. Whether people are employed or unemployed, their utility bills, grocery bills and mortgage payments do not stop. What would the population have done? In good part, those who were positioned well would have been able to get financing to sustain themselves and there would have been much higher personal debt at a much higher interest rate. Many talk about banks making great profits. That would have meant banks would have made that much more profit.

What about the individuals who did not have access to additional funds? They may have asked a family member or a friend for support. Many of them would have ended up with all sorts of social issues, everything from suicide to family breakups to different forms of mental illness to an increase in social services at a lower level. It would have been fairly profound. That was why CERB was developed by this government right from the beginning, and it was a program that was developed from nothing.

We can take a look at businesses. I can remember working very closely with the former government House leader, who is now the Minister of Small Business, and she would talk about small businesses being the backbone of our society. The government, right from the Prime Minister's Office to all of my Liberal colleagues, will talk about how important small businesses are to our economy.

What would have happened if government had not been there for that group in our society? Many of those businesses would have gone bankrupt. Some of them would have closed their doors and given up. The outcomes would have been very harsh. We can imagine the hundreds of thousands of businesses that could have possibly been lost as a direct result of a government not taking the actions it needed to in order to have those jobs at the time when, in many cases, those businesses would be able to reopen. Much of that support allowed them to stay open so that they could continue employing people. The program allowed that to take place, and without that program, we would have had a more difficult time restarting the economy. It is a lot harder to get new companies up and running versus companies that have been established but are going through difficult times because of the pandemic. If we can save those companies, the opportunity for us to recover quicker is there, and it is very real.

I mentioned that we have facts to demonstrate that the policies are working. We can take a look at Canada versus the United States in terms of employment but, more specifically, at the employment numbers back in January 2020 and the number of people who lost their jobs during February, April and going into May. Of the people who lost their jobs, how many were able to recover them by November? Members will find that Canada seriously outpaces the United States by 15% to 20% in terms of people who had lost their jobs and are now back at work. I believe it is a direct result of the programs that the Canadian government introduced.

In the beginning, the Prime Minister talked about needing to have a team Canada approach in dealing with the pandemic, and it was encouraging. For the first number of months, here in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democrats, to a certain degree the Conservatives, the Greens and, of course, members of the Liberal caucus, were all wanting to contribute in a positive way. I genuinely believe that many of the modifications to programs that we saw in the months that followed were as a direct result of what members of this House from all political parties brought to different ministries in the form of ideas and recommendations. I can recall very clearly that when the Prime Minister was first elected as prime minister, he reinforced that it was important that members of Parliament take ideas from our constituencies and bring them forward.

I think we saw a great example of that, especially in the first few months, but if we take a look outside of the chamber, I think that we can be even more encouraged. Those who are following the debate, whether it is today or over the past number of weeks and months, can take a great deal of encouragement from the degree in which society as a whole recognized what we needed to do in order to minimize the negative impact.

We saw different levels of government, provincial governments, indigenous governments, municipal governments and even school boards, come to the table and recognize that we all have a collective role in order to put into place policies that are going to help our population and ensure that the damages to our economy are minimized.

Again, I would point to some facts. The biggest one that comes to my mind right offhand is the provincial restart program. The provincial restart program was $19 billion, coming from Ottawa, going to provinces and territories. That money was based on a series of discussions and dialogue between ministers and provincial jurisdictions in order to know how Canada can assist the different provinces and territories and indigenous communities in dealing with the COVID-19 crisis.

We all knew, back in April and May, that we were going through the first wave and there would be a second wave. No one was surprised, at least not the different levels of government. That is why there was the development of that team Canada approach to make sure that we would be in a better position to be able to deal with the pandemic. We learned a great deal from the first wave, so we were in a much better position to be able to deal with the second wave.

I have some numbers of the personal protective gear that was necessary. Members should keep in mind that we did not have that capacity here during the first wave. The educational curve was fairly steep, and as a nation we did exceptionally well. I do not mind comparing our economy, the state of mind of our society and how it is that we have managed through this, but let me provide some numbers.

With regard to face shields, we had 52,984,000 as of November 16, 2020; gloves, we had 626,923,000; gowns for hospitals, 115,324,000; hand sanitizer, 20,646,000 litres; N-95 respirators, the special masks, I am not 100% sure, but I believe that is what it is, we had 70,163,000; non-medical masks, 28,945,000; cloth masks, 8,553,000; surgical masks, 309,902,000; ventilators, 7,761; and there are still more to come.

These are the types of things the government, during the first wave, going through the tendering process, was able to materialize and to ultimately distribute, working with other levels of government.

The restart program was of great help to our provinces and territories. It provided almost an additional $420 million to Manitoba. When we ask what that $420 million went toward, there is a fairly long list. For example, it allowed Manitoba to triple the number of tests for COVID-19, among many other things.

We understood, across Canada, that there were a lot of nervous parents as the school year began in September. The government, working with others, came up with a $2-billion program of which about $85 million went to Manitoba. Whether it was Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, P.E.I. or Ontario, all provinces and territories benefited from that restart money. We all benefited by the way we were able to acquire the important tools necessary to keep our population safe.

Let us fast-forward to where we are today. We are in an excellent position in terms of vaccinations. Months ago during the summer, we were able to successfully negotiate seven agreements that will put Canada at the front in terms of the number of vaccinations we are going to be able to provide. We will have enough to provide more doses than we have people in Canada.

We did not know which company was going to be first. Today, yes, we know, but two or three weeks ago, we could not predict it. We now know that from Pfizer this month, we are finally going to receive some vaccinations. It is because of the hard work of civil servants, health experts and so many others who put Canada in a good position that we are able to have that.

We have passed legislation already that further expands programs such as the wage subsidy program and the rent subsidy program for our businesses. We have been able to accomplish a great deal by working together. When members ask where the plan is or to show them the specifics, there is a plan that is there. Maybe it is not quite in the format that members would like to see, but there is a plan there. We will continue to move forward, in particular with the vaccines.

The area I am disappointed with in terms of the Conservative motion is dealing with the CPP. I am a big fan of the CPP. In opposition for years, I sat when the Harper government chose to do nothing in terms of increasing it so that when people retire, they would have a better quality of life. We finally achieved that several years ago shortly after winning in 2015. I am also disappointed that the Conservatives still do not understand what all Canadians understand and that is the importance of our environment and why they would go on the offensive on the price of pollution yet again. We have many provincial jurisdictions that already have it in place.

The price on pollution is not universally applied in every province, because many provinces already have it in place. However, they will not let it go. That means there is still room for improvement.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his insightful comments. I think I speak for all of us on this side of the House in saying that we always appreciate when he joins the debate and gives his thoughts on the issues impacting our country.

In listening to the member opposite give his remarks, what struck me was the difference between what he is saying, in terms of the support for businesses that the government has brought forward, and the reality I am hearing on the ground, particularly from tourism operators and seasonal businesses that have been hurt throughout the pandemic. They have not had the opportunity to qualify for a lot of the government support that has been brought forward.

Going forward, we know that we need a plan for rapid testing, we need a plan for vaccines, and we need a plan to support businesses to get our economy back on track. What we are proposing today in our motion is a plan to reduce taxes and reduce onerous regulations on businesses.

Would the member support that today?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words.

In regard to the question itself, when we talk about the CPP, Conservatives often talk about it in the form of a tax. I do not see it as a tax. The way I see it is as an investment in workers for their retirement. Not all workers have the company pension that we will have when we retire, which will be a fairly good pension. Many would suggest it is the Cadillac of pensions. I do not know. I have not asked exactly what it is.

Having said that, I believe that the CPP is a very important aspect of retirement for workers. For many years, we were not getting the money that was necessary. Now, the increase to CPP is going to allow Canadians to have a better quality of life when it comes time to retire.

I do not see that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue on with questions and comments. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

He talked about vaccination and said that the Liberals had a plan. I have a plan. I am 70 years old and an MP. Will I be entitled to the vaccine that is coming?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the national government is not going to determine whether that member is going to be receiving the vaccine.

Ottawa is responsible for acquiring the vaccines, putting out the tender, making sure that we have the agreements necessary to get the millions of vaccines that are going to be required, and then ensuring that there is distribution to the provinces. The provinces will ultimately determine who is going to be receiving the vaccine and when.

That specific question might better be asked on the floor of the National Assembly of Quebec.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate we were talking about tourism. It is a very important part of the economy in my riding. We have already lost more than 20% of the tourism-related small businesses in my riding. It is a great concern. Almost half of them are teetering on the brink.

As I said before, what anchors tourism in my riding in the Okanagan Valley is the wine industry. One of the few things that I can support in this motion is the clause that mentions the escalator tax: the excise tax. This is a tax that Canadian wineries did not have to pay at all a year ago, but the Liberal government forced them to start paying it as of this summer. It made that decision. We have been waiting for a government decision on something to replace that, so that these wineries can survive.

We need a trade-friendly replacement for supports to give them the support they need and to replace the excise tax they now have to pay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not drink wine, but I suspect that the region produces some of the best wine in the world. That is why I think that our aggressive trade policies and the number of trade agreements that we signed should hopefully support those small businesses. When we think of tourism in Canada as a whole, there is no doubt that it has been affected. There has been a huge effect on the tourism industry.

I am a big fan of Folklorama in the city of Winnipeg. I see real benefits. That is one of the reasons why I was so pleased when the Folklorama board met with our Prime Minister over Zoom. The tourism industry continues to lobby and get the attention of the government and all members of the House, I suspect, because we recognize that some industries have been hit harder than others. By the way, if one were to talk to the organizers of Folklorama, they would say how good the wage subsidy program was in terms of enabling them to keep their doors open.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on one of the elements of the opposition motion today, which is unfortunate because there is much in it that I would like to support.

The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about the price on carbon. I wanted to ask him about this key point. Carbon pricing requires that as the amount of carbon goes down, the carbon price goes up. It is not an escalator clause, as one member represented. It is actually the only way in which it works. When the Christy Clark government in British Columbia stalled the carbon price and refused to raise it, as had been originally planned by Gordon Campbell, it stopped working.

Can the hon. parliamentary secretary comment on the essential nature of continuing to increase the cost? It is not unpredicted. Businesses know exactly how much it is going up per year. When does he think we will see a real climate plan that takes us to our targets?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a climate plan that will achieve net zero by 2050. I had the opportunity to speak on that bill. I know the former leader of the Green Party is not necessarily a big fan of that piece of legislation, but it is a plan in regard to climate action.

With regard to the price on pollution, Manitoba is one of the provinces where Ottawa has a price on pollution. What amazes me is how Conservatives try to portray this as a tax, yet a majority of the constituents I represent have a net benefit. They get more money as a direct result of the price on pollution.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the things my hon. colleague said in his speech, including the spirit of co-operation that he mentioned.

It is true that, at the beginning of the pandemic, the opposition parties and the government worked together and implemented measures like the wage subsidy. That is a very good example. It was the Bloc Québécois that came up with that idea and I tip my hat to the government for implementing it and co-operating with us. Unfortunately, that co-operation eroded after that. Of course, it was hard to work together when the Liberals locked the doors of Parliament for six weeks.

My colleague spoke about real and tangible help. That is true. It was so real and tangible that even the Liberal Party of Canada took advantage of the wage subsidy to fill its coffers. When we ask my hon. colleagues about it, they always answer by talking about the benefits of the wage subsidy and telling us how much money was paid and how many businesses benefited from it.

My hon. colleague is known for being extremely intelligent so I am sure he will understand my very simple and basic question and not sidestep it. Does he believe that the Liberal Party should pay back the money it received under the wage subsidy program?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to say that the wage subsidy program enabled tens of thousands of businesses in all regions of our country to keep people employed. That program has been highly successful. The proof is in the pudding: all one needs to do is to look at the piece of legislation that we passed a couple of weeks ago. We received the unanimous support of the House. Every member of every political party said yes to the wage subsidy program. I see that as a positive thing.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I thank my hon. colleagues in Canada's government-in-waiting for today's supply day motion. I also thank the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for their support as we work together for a better future.

There is no doubt in the minds of Canadians that the Liberal government has failed to be open and transparent regarding Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadians have been denied timely and factual information to give small business owners an element of certainty. Today's motion requires the government to share the timing of the plan to get the COVID-19 vaccines to Canadians.

It is unacceptable that Canadians still do not have critical information to know when lockdowns might end, such as when every Canadian will have access to a vaccine, how many people will receive vaccines each month, how vaccines will be safely delivered, stored and distributed, where Canadians will be able to get vaccinated, how the government plans to distribute vaccines to members of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans, who fall under federal jurisdiction, when other vaccines will be available in Canada, and, at what point the government expects we will achieve herd immunity.

From the very outset of this pandemic, the Prime Minister has been disrespectful of Canadians, starting with parliamentarians. What has been particularly predictable has been the tactic by this Prime Minister and his disciples to try to pass off blame for his government's failings. His attempts to smear former Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the current government's lack of action are pathetic and dishonest.

Canadians should not be surprised to learn that the reason Canada does not have any capacity to manufacture its own vaccine is a direct consequence of the policy of the Prime Minister's father, Pierre, when he eliminated patent protection for drug manufacturers. This policy produced short-term gain for the long-term pain Canadians find themselves in today. The short-term gain was the drop in drug prices when the patent protection was reduced. The pain was felt more slowly. When the Liberal Party changed the patent protection on new drugs in 1969, it led to a brain drain. There was an exodus of major drug companies that used to do their research in Canada.

The University of Toronto was world renowned as the place Banting and Best did their Nobel Prize-calibre research leading to the discovery of insulin. Montreal had a vibrant research community. This proud legacy has been lost. What Canada received in its place were knock-offs: cheap generic drugs that rely on the work of others.

It was not until the election of a Conservative government in 1984 that a real attempt was made to reverse the damage. During legislative committee hearings, the deans of the leading medical schools pleaded with Conservative parliamentarians to fix Pierre's mistake. If a gifted Canadian medical researcher wanted to continue in his or her field, they were forced to leave Canada. This fact was noticed in our medical schools.

For every successful discovery of a miracle drug, there are a hundred failures. The money for failures comes from the successes. The pharmaceutical companies could not afford to have their research stolen by generic companies. It made sense to do their drug research where they manufactured the drugs. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board that was formed could not bring back the companies that had fled Canada. Whenever government interferes in the marketplace, a price must be paid. The price today is Canada has no domestic capability to manufacture its own vaccine. This leaves Canadians and its enterprises where we are today.

The economic statement, the great reset budget, or however else the Prime Minister refers to the plan that was peddled to Canadians, follows the same muddy-headed thinking of reducing drug patent protection for short-term gain. It does not measure the future consequences that the ill-thought-out actions will have on tomorrow. The Liberal government promises to borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend on items that have nothing to do with getting a safe vaccine so Canadians can get their lives back. This country will remain in lockdown for months, if not years, after the rest of the world will be in recovery.

Is it not strange how the things that were unaffordable before the COVID pandemic suddenly are now affordable?

The Liberal response to the pandemic has left this country poorer. The Prime Minister’s uncontrolled deficit spending had savaged this country’s finances before COVID hit. While the green finance minister would like Canadians to dismiss the $400 billion added to the national debt, the fact remains years of previously unimaginable deficits lie ahead. No wonder a career public servant, the deputy finance minister, promptly resigned the day after the budget statement.

Our supply day motion is a request from Canadians who are struggling: Please, no more tax increases. If we really are all in this together, as his apologists in the bought media are paid to say we are, how about treating us with a little respect? Tell us what the plan is so that we can plan and so that our small businesses can plan. That is all Canadians are asking for.

The Prime Minister's now revealed hidden agenda, a great reset, is based on the false assumption that magically massive public spending and deficits can generate economic growth. That is an act of deception. That plan has never worked. Ask the people of Greece or Cyprus if that plan worked for them.

The next act of deception is what this reset budget means to older people, the ones who built this country. It used to be a common perception that the 18- to 35-year-old age group would be stuck with the bill for today’s spending, including the pre-COVID deficits. That is no longer the case. The older generation is just as condemned as its children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to paying for the government’s mistakes as long as the Liberals remain in power.

Canadians owe it to themselves to become informed about what the great reset is all about. I am grateful to quote from a piece written in The Post Millennial by Dr. Leslyn Lewis, who has big shoes to fill as the member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk after the next election. She wrote:

The devastation brought on by COVID requires our united efforts in protecting Canadians. It is not a time to capitalize on our vulnerabilities by utilizing our tax dollars to usher in one man’s vision of a “greener,” more “sustainable” and “inclusive” economy. All of these words sound benevolent on their own, but what are the actual policy changes that this Liberal government believes are necessary and plan to implement? Without presenting budgets or plans to the House of Commons, this remains a mystery, to put it kindly. We need all hands on deck to survive this pandemic, and there should be no hidden agenda.

The Great Reset is using the pandemic to create a post-COVID era that redefine industries, work, and even how we are taxed (creating new streams for future taxation (for example: working from home tax, home equity tax, carbon footprint tax.)....

Canadians owe it to ourselves to get educated about the Reset and assess whether our government’s post-COVID policies reflect the “Reset” policies. One should not succumb to being bullied or shamed into not asking questions about why our government has touted several post-COVID policies on the environment, economy and social inequality within the book. Similarly, we should not accept our prime minister feigning ignorance over the Reset after he has adopted reset policies and bragged about this approach at the United Nations. As citizens, we must decide on the kind of post-COVID country that we envision, and not allow the pandemic to be used as an opportunity for any leaders to remake Canada in his own image. In the end, we must remember that governments can only implement this kind of economic, societal, and 4th green industrial revolution with the consent and the mandate of the electorate.

A government that is controlled by the people is a free society. Labelling concerned citizens “conspiracy theorists” and claiming that...the prime minister [did not say what he did] at the United Nations...is sheer bullying. This form of disenfranchisement and silencing of people is intended to instill fear so that we won’t hold our elected officials accountable. Our key to freedom and upholding democracy is knowledge, action, and civic involvement.

I am honoured to put that quote on the parliamentary record.

Today's opposition motion is a reasonable request for Canadians. It is time for the government to act like we are really all in this together.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am a bit puzzled by my colleague's speech. I believe I heard her say we are saddling future generations with an enormous deficit and we must stop the spending. At the same time, I consistently hear the Conservatives saying we need to continue to help our small businesses and make sure nobody falls through the cracks. The money we are spending today is ensuring our businesses stay open. The money we are spending today is ensuring that families do not take on additional debt, which they and their children would be saddled with.

We are borrowing at an all-time low interest rate at the moment as the Government of Canada, and we are doing so in order to protect our citizens. Which program specifically would this member like us to cut, the CERB, the small business loans, the wage subsidy?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there it is. The government member is saying it does not matter that we have debt. The member is only looking at today, not what the future could bring, such as higher interest rates. In the motion, we are asking the government to stop adding more to the tax burden on Canadians and businesses, for example, the carbon tax, the increases and the new fuel directive. Grain farmers are already paying tens of thousands of dollars more because of these taxes just to dry grain. The grain then has to be transported and there are taxes on the fuel. That is why a basic thing, like the cost of bread, is going through the roof. People cannot even afford bread because of these supposed green policies, which do nothing but funnel money to Liberal insiders.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the CPP contributions being a tax. I and the people in my riding see it as an investment in retirement security and how important that is. We see seniors right now who cannot make ends meet and are struggling on the current CPP they are getting. I have not had a single call to my office with someone concerned about the CPP rate going up in the new year. Rather, I have heard more about the broken designs of government programs, including the commercial rent program, which the government will not backdate to April 1 for those whose landlord would not apply. I do not understand why the Conservatives have not joined the NDP in calling on the government to backdate the program so that those who were denied access to that important program, good business owners and taxpayers, can keep their businesses afloat.

Why are the Conservatives not getting behind backdating that program?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not call the CPP a tax. What we are saying is to hold off on the increases so that the deductions for people who still have paycheques do not lower their pay even more, not to mention the small businesses who have to match those deductions every month. They are struggling to survive so that people have jobs to go to. We are not saying do not do it. We are saying, eventually do it, just not now.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a bit about the certainty the member mentioned very early on in her speech. I know many businesses in my riding across the north, particularly many seasonal operators, have really spoken about the certainty they need from the government on what this next season might look like and what the plan moving forward is for the government to get our economy back on track.

I wonder if the member could speak a bit more to how important having that certainty is and the failure of the Liberal government to provide that to small businesses.