Debates of March 9th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

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

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech, I talked about how the Conservatives continuously try to spread misinformation. I cited a couple of examples of the airline industry and of charitable groups using specific quotes from the critic for finance. He, and through him the Conservative Party, tries to give Canadians the impression that the government is not there to support small businesses in Canada. Once again, nothing could be further from the truth.

When we look at the initiatives we have put in place, whether the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the Canada emergency rent subsidy program, the Emergency Business Account, the credit availability program or relief and recovery funds, the government has been there for small businesses and will continue to be there for small businesses.

The second problem I have with the Conservatives is frustration with how the Conservative Party continues to play a destructive role inside the House of Commons, on the floor of the chamber, by not allowing things to be done. Talk is cheap. Action is what we want to see.

I was encouraged when the opposition House leader indicated moments ago that the Conservatives were prepared to pass Bill C-18, which is a trade agreement. That means they support the legislation with no issues and they are going to pass it through. I suspect, as I indicated previously, that the only way to get things passed through the House of Commons is to shame the Conservatives so that they feel so uncomfortable that they feel there is more than an obligation to allow legislation to go through.

A good example would be the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She is the critic for workforce development and she tweeted that time was running out for Canadians with expiring EI benefits. That is Bill C-24. It is one of the pieces of legislation that we want to see pass through the House of Commons. If the leader of the Conservative Party would actually listen to some of the members of the Conservative caucus, we might even see that bill pass.

I would encourage the opposition House leader to take the initiative and look at what that bill is actually saying and proposing to do. Maybe he could consult with his Conservative caucus colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and recognize how that bill is going to help Canadians. As I indicated, actions speak louder than words when it comes to the Conservative Party.

On Bill C-14, another bill that ultimately helps small businesses, they have been filibustering, yet today there is a motion on why we are not doing enough to support small businesses. Do we see some irony there? I see a great deal of irony there. From the destructive force better known as the Conservative Party, we have seen that many issues are not being dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons because of the role that they have decided to play. It is politically charged, instead of serving Canadians by fighting the pandemic.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, what struck me about the comments of my friend from Winnipeg North was that after speaking about what he calls misinformation, he proceeded to say that the government has supposedly done such a great job supporting small businesses throughout the course of the pandemic. I know many small business owners, particularly in the tourism and hospitality sectors, who would very much disagree with the member's way of framing the government's response. We know that many people have fallen through the cracks and have not been able to apply for many of these programs.

I am wondering if the member would agree that many people have been left behind by the government's programs and that he should be working with the opposition to help create a more beneficial COVID response and more business support going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, since day one this government has been there for small businesses, medium-sized businesses and individual Canadians. Our program development and spending clearly demonstrate this, contrary to the misinformation that we witnessed even today. The Conservative finance critic, for example, said today, “The Liberal government has been promising support for Canada's airline industry for over a year and still nothing.” That is a direct quote from the finance critic of the Conservative Party. That is just not right and it is just not true.

I would be using unparliamentary words if I were to explain exactly what the critic was saying. That is the reality. There is misinformation coming from the Conservative Party, and it is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons day after day.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Clearly, the Liberals think they have done enough to help small regional businesses. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Many of them do not meet the various program criteria. We know that large-scale programs do not always work. Targeted help is needed. I am thinking about the sugar shacks in my region, because maple syrup season is approaching. These businesses were unable to open their doors.

What does the Liberal government have to say to them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the government as a whole or members of Parliament, no one is saying that programs have been absolutely perfect. We brought in a suite of programs to support small businesses, and from the beginning we have made some modifications. It is one of the reasons follow-up legislation has been brought forward.

We continue to look at ways to improve and strengthen legislation and put Canada in a good position so that we will be able to build back better. That has always been a priority for this government. First and foremost, we will support Canadians from coast to coast to coast and, second, we will ensure that we are in a position to build back better. Because of the work with the different stakeholders, the government and the civil service, we have been very successful, I would argue, in putting Canada in a great position going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, small businesses are the engine of job creation in Canada. I think we all agree on that. They are an important part of every community across the country. However, while local businesses are struggling, the Liberals are letting big companies like Bell and Imperial Oil take millions in public COVID relief and pay millions in dividends to their shareholders.

Does the member believe that the big corporations profiting from the pandemic, and profiting in a big way, should be asked to pay their fair share so that we can support the backbone of our communities, which is small businesses?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely critical for the Government of Canada to support people, real people, in all regions of our country. We did just that by introducing programs, such as the CERB program. Almost nine million Canadians in every region of our country were recipients of an increase in disposable income because of programming that was put in place by this government, which worked in co-operation with the civil service and other stakeholders. That, to me, is results. The member—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I speak today to oppose this motion, which is yet another display of political grandstanding on the part of opposition members across the way. It is another example of the Conservative Party being completely out of touch with the realities that Canadian citizens and businesses are encountering during the pandemic.

I would like to begin my remarks by saying that I understand the importance of opposition days in the House of Commons. I recognize that, at the end of the day, every member of the House works on behalf of their constituents to the best of their capabilities. Regardless of what party represents a particular riding, it is important that all constituents have the ability to have their voices, concerns, issues and ideas discussed and debated in the House.

While I find myself in disagreement with many opposition motions that come forward, I still have great respect for their importance within our democratic system. I recognize the urgency with which this motion was written, and it demonstrate the importance of offering workers, families and business sectors the supports they need during this pandemic. However, I am a little confused because it is such a rare occasion when the opposition endorses the measures the government is undertaking.

In the case of this motion, the call for such supports looks like little more than an opportunity to remind my colleagues across the way that their call is already being answered by our government. In fact, it has been progressively addressed by the Prime Minister every single day for almost a year now, making me wonder if the opposition has any idea what is going on right now with regard to our country's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As an example, the highly affected sectors credit availability program is open to all sectors mentioned in this motion and offers 100% government-granted financing and low-interest loans of up to $1 million over 10 years. Some of the business owners I have spoken to since the program was introduced are very happy to have this level of financing available in times such as these, when cash flow and available capital are stalled. This comes from the conversations I had consulting with my constituents, a practice I have always considered a fundamental aspect of being a member of Parliament. I can assure my opposition colleagues that if they did something similar with businesses in their own ridings, they would find entrepreneurs who have taken advantage of this program and, in many cases, have credited it with allowing their businesses to continue during the difficult economic climate of the pandemic.

The same thing applies to a program like the Canada emergency rent subsidy. For reference, as of February 28, over 134,000 organizations have received support totalling $1.81 billion. There is also the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which to date has helped protect more than 5.1 million Canadian jobs.

The opposition is also undoubtedly aware, or should be if it reads the news, that our government is currently negotiating with Canadian airlines to see what additional supports can be offered to a sector that has been particularly hard hit by this pandemic. This is of course in addition to the over $1.8 billion the airline sector has received through the wage subsidy program, which has directly gone to workers, and the $1 billion that airports and smaller airlines received through last year's fall economic statement.

Finally, with regard to the opposition's ill-informed concern for bankruptcies and layoffs, there is the Canada emergency business account. It has provided over 832,000 businesses across Canada with over $34 billion in support, reducing the expenses and freeing up liquidity for small and medium-sized businesses.

As I mentioned, at best, this is an innocent mistake from an opposition party that did not do its homework before presenting such a motion. However, at worst, which I fear is really the situation here, we have an opposition that is more concerned with playing political games and grandstanding than working collectively to support Canadians and Canadian businesses during the pandemic. This is the crux of why I must vote against the motion.

Misinformation is always harmful in a functioning democracy like Canada, but this is particularly the case during a global pandemic that we continue to battle our way through. The motion is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from what this government is already doing and, as a result, leads to confusion about what Canadians and businesses can access right now. Instead of doing their jobs and giving accurate information to their constituents to address whatever situations are arising, opposition members are more focused on electoral politics. That is the real story of today's motion, and it is one more reason why the Conservative Party should really do a deep dive into what it is trying to accomplish.

Every week, we read articles about the disarray in the Conservative Party. We hear about the factions that are still fighting about issues like abortion, which was settled decades ago. We hear about a leader who is confused about which MP he wants to trot out to the media on a particular day. We hear about opposition members who are dissatisfied with the direction of their party and are avowing to take it back. Today's confused and baffling motion is just a by-product of this chaos.

In closing, I encourage all members of the House to vote against this frivolous, ridiculous stunt and to move forward on more pressing actions that will continue to assist Canadians and Canadian businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the beginning of my speech, I forgot to thank my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. I thank him for sharing his time with me and for his great work not only for the constituents of Winnipeg North but for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member seems to be saying that workers for Canadian airlines have never had it so good, that the government has already given all the support they need during this pandemic. I have talked to workers from the airline sector who, lacking 17 or 18 years of seniority, have been laid off and this member has the audacity to ask why they are not happy with the wage subsidy.

I went through Pearson airport on Sunday evening and there were six flights on the board. The idea that the airline sector has received all of the support it needs from the government and that tens of thousands of workers should just be glad they have been given the wage subsidy, or they should be glad to have been given the CERB or EI when they were laid off, is insulting.

When will this member realize that they have not given the airline sector and its workers the support they need to continue to serve Canadians during this pandemic?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not say that we are trying to ignore members of the airline industry. In fact, for every Canadian, including the people who work in the airline industry, this government has tried to help those affected. We are not perfect.

Every day, the Prime Minister has received input from members and organizations on the ground. He has come out every day with different efforts to help workers and businesses from coast to coast to coast.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. At the beginning, he gave the impression that everything was perfect, but he just qualified his remarks. My question picks up on that.

The government was quick to provide support for the oil industry, which had already received billions of dollars by April 2020. In contrast, nine months later, there are still sectors, such as the tourism, hospitality, arts and major events sectors, that need an assistance plan.

Does my colleague not agree that some industries need a targeted assistance plan?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, nowhere in my speech did I say we were perfect and have done everything perfectly.

Every step of the way, when I walk through my riding, I meet people who say that the Canada emergency response benefit has helped them or the Canada emergency business account has helped them. Other people will say that the business account benefited them, or the Canada emergency wage subsidy has helped them, or the Canada emergency rent subsidy has helped them, or the expanded business benefits have helped them.

The Prime Minister and this government have done everything they can to work with the grassroots, the opposition parties and organizations across Canada to help workers and Canadian companies to make sure that we are able to get through this pandemic.

That is what I have said. That is what we will continue to do.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, while it is interesting to hear the hon. member say that the government has done everything it can do for small businesses, the small business owners in my riding are certainly waiting to hear if the government can do more because many of them are going to have to close their doors permanently.

One of the things I want to ask very specifically for, and that small business owners have been asking for for a very long time, is a cap on the fees that credit card companies charge them. Today in the House, the NDP leader was calling for a 1% cap on those fees. Why have the Liberals not moved to cap those credit card fees, which are so hard on small business owners during this pandemic?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for all the great work he does for his constituents. The issue that he raised is a genuine one. However, now during the pandemic, when it comes to businesses, whether it is the wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy or the Canada business account, all of these have tried to help business owners to make sure—

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

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope and on behalf of Canadians. We are here today debating a motion put forward by the Conservative party. We are talking about things that we would like to see included in the next federal budget.

Of course, it has been over two years since the government has deigned to present its financial plan through a budget to Canadians. It is the longest time in Canadian history that we have gone between the presentation of budgets in the House, and that is quite shocking. Yes, we are in a pandemic, but this is a country that has gone through two world wars. We have managed to have budgets presented in the House where the government laid out its plans, priorities and the fiscal situation in the country. We now have a situation where we are over two years, the longest time in Canadian history, where no budget has been presented.

I would submit to the House, and we heard today from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, that it is because the Liberal party holds this place in contempt. The way that it has operated over the last year has shown that it does not view what we do here as important, that it views the work of Parliament as a nuisance and that, when we are debating and trying to improve government legislation, we are filibustering, we are standing in the way and not doing what Canadians want us to do. If we look at the record of the government, from day one of this pandemic, it has treated this place with contempt.

The first bill the Liberals brought forward to deal with a crisis like we had not seen in generations gave Bill Morneau and the Liberal Party power over spending, taxing and all the rest of it. They wanted to strip Parliament of its power for 21 months. That was the initial foray of the government in this pandemic, to strip away the rights of members of Parliament to hold the government to account and to improve legislation that our constituents needed to see pass, but the Liberals knew best. They have known best this entire time. Any time we have raised any concerns, we have been condemned as standing in the way, because they view Parliament as a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's Office.

We heard this from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader when he accused the Conservative Party of filibustering a bill. The bill was introduced yesterday at about 3:15 p.m., debated for about three hours and that was enough time. That is too much time for the Liberal government to have scrutiny placed on its legislation. We are clearly not in it for Canadians, if we are not passing that bill. Why did that bill have to come forward? Because the government messed up the bill that created a loophole that allowed travellers who went to Hawaii to come back and collect $1,000 from the government because they had to quarantine.

I got so excited at the beginning, Madam Speaker, I forgot to say I will be splitting my time with the member for Oshawa, and I know he has some excellent things that he too would like to say.

The Liberals brought in Bill C-2 late in September, after they had shut down the House. Members will recall that they shut down Parliament rather than face an ethics and finance committee review of their WE charity scandal. We have learned quite a few things about WE charity as a result of the studies that have happened at committee. The Liberals tried to shut that down. They truly did filibuster that. When they could not shut it down, they padlocked Parliament. They shut this place down for weeks and weeks on end as the deadline came for the Canada emergency response benefit. When that deadline started to come in October, they deigned to bring back the House. Then the Liberals said that we needed to pass Bill C-2 immediately or else we would be putting Canadians out on the street. As we have done throughout this pandemic, the Conservatives have worked to get benefits to Canadians. We have expressed our concerns, and we got the benefits to Canadians.

We pointed out the problem with returning travellers getting $1,000 from the government because they had to quarantine at home, and now we have Bill C-24, which seeks to address that. Another deadline approaches, March 28. and the government did not bring in the bill at the start of this session. It waited a month or so. Then after it brought it in, it told us, after three hours of debate, that if we did not pass it, we were the ones who were holding up relief for Canadians. What a joke. That is how the Liberal government is treating this Parliament. It has done it throughout.

The government should have learned its lesson. Every time it introduced legislation, it treated Parliament as if it was something that should receive the back of its hand, a nuisance that was not worthy of a response and was not worthy of sitting with its full powers. We can obviously do it in a hybrid format, but the powers were stripped away for months. I talked about that first bill that took away the rights of Parliament to scrutinize budgets.

We also had the original wage subsidy, which was only a 10% subsidy, not the 75% subsidy on which we had insisted. The government finally relented and provided it.

We talked about promoting the wage subsidy over the CERB, but the government took so long to get it right that it was less advantageous for employees to stay with their company right at the start of the pandemic, which was a huge mistake.

The original rent assistance program, which called upon a landlord to make the application directly for someone renting from them, was very poorly designed and had hardly any uptake, but the government did not care. It had not consulted with the other parties. It knew best.

That is what has happened here throughout. We just heard it again from the member for Surrey—Newton. People who raise concerns about their specific sectors should just be grateful for what they are getting, because the government knows what they need. If they are calling for more support, it must mean they do not understand the brilliance of the government. This is not as it should be.

We heard about the original CEBA accounts. That is mentioned in our motion. Those that had personal accounts with a bank, not a business account, were ineligible. A number of small businesses, farmers, etc. were not able to access those guaranteed loans.

Startups were not able to access the government programs because they could not show a loss of revenue. People who had just started, pouring their lifesavings into their work, were told, sorry, the government was not here for them.

All of these problems were identified, but the government did not listen because it knew best. It is time that it starts to put Parliament back to work, that it starts to take into account that there are 338 of us here who are all working for our constituents who have been devastated by this pandemic. We all have good ideas. We all represent people who are suffering, who want this to be over as soon as possible and who want the government, and expect the government, to be there for them when they need them.

We were elected to hold the government to account. When there have been good measures, we have supported them. However, we cannot just simply rush everything through. We cannot say that the new posture is that a bill is tabled and on the same day it is expected to be passed at all stages, no witnesses, no committee study, no one who will be directly impacted being consulted.

That is a folly of the government, and it is time that we start to put Parliament back at the centre of government in the country. We need to stop treating this institution with contempt. That starts, quite frankly, at the top. Press conferences have replaced Parliament for the Prime Minister since day one.

It is time that Parliament took the central role and that we all take back the roles that we have been given to hold the government to account, to scrutinize legislation, to propose solutions that will help our constituents. We are not a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's Office. We are not an afterthought. This is an essential service and we should start to treat it like that. We should not be an afterthought for the Liberal government.

There is a number of things we have identified in our motion that call for sector specific changes. If the government had listened from the start, programs would have been better, more Canadians would have been better served. It is time for the government to start treating Parliament with the respect it deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, when I go back and look at the text of the motion, it talks about tourism-related businesses, it talks about the aviation sector and it talks about small business. If I had more time, I could certainly rhyme off things like the wage subsidy supporting five million people and CERB supporting nine million Canadians at the height of this program along with the emergency business account. We have put in the HASCAP. Almost $1.7 billion have been put toward the aviation sector. We have had the regional relief and recovery fund.

Will the member at least recognize that the text of this motion seems to be blind to the fact that the government has put significant programs in place to support small businesses?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, there it is again. The government has done everything right. It has all the solutions. A small business, whose very existence is threatened, should be grateful for the government having given it the benefits that it has had so far. We should not mind the fact that its doors are about to close or that it has not received the type of support it needs or if it has been left out altogether, as new businesses have, as have people who have recently acquired a business and cannot show that decline in revenue.

Again, the Liberal government is arrogant. It always believes that it has the solutions. It disregards other parliamentarians. Whatever comes out of the PMO is perfect. It is time that Liberals listen to their constituents who are calling for the very specific things that our motion addresses today.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One point of the Conservatives' motion that really speaks to me concerns the repayable loans to airlines. This industry has been hit hard by the pandemic. I should point out that the motion proposes that these loans be issued in exchange for consumer refunds. There are many Quebeckers and Canadians who still have not received refunds for their plane tickets.

However, we must also ensure that airlines restore regional routes. My region was unfortunately among the ones abandoned by Air Canada last summer. There are no longer any flights between Mont-Joli and Gatineau. We must get these routes restored.

I also think it is important to help the smaller airlines. Do the Conservatives envision giving money to the major airlines that are seeking to turn a profit in addition to supporting the smaller airlines that truly aim to serve the regions?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important that we support our airline sector. I am simply saying that this is the same approach that the government has taken with the energy sector, which was promised help within hours by Bill Morneau after his first bill came before the House. It was told that sector-specific support was on the way and to standby. Of course, it never happened. All the government says now is that those workers should be grateful they got employment insurance, or the CERB or the wage subsidy, as if that addresses the specific concerns of those sectors.

What we have seen with the airline sector is that their competitors around the world have been given those repayable loans by their governments. If we want to have a competitive airline sector that will be there when the pandemic is over or managed better, we need to support the airlines now or else they will continue to have to shrink their operations and continue to abandon routes like the one that serves my hon. colleague's community. We on this side of the House do not want to see that happen.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused by the Conservative rhetoric, which rails against large government programs, but then the Conservatives bring forward a motion like this that calls for government programs to support sectors. However, I do not want to digress. I want to be fair.

I asked the last Liberal speaker a very simple question about small business and the severe situation that most small businesses find themselves in during the pandemic. The member for Burnaby South asked the government today if it would support a cap of 1% on the fees charged by credit card companies to merchants to help out small businesses.

I want to ask the same question of the Conservatives. Will they support a cap on credit card fees being charged to small businesses?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is certainly something we need to look as part of a full suite of programs that would help small businesses come out the other side. We have some measures in our motion that will address that and we would certainly work with the NDP on anything that would support small businesses.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents in Oshawa. I want to thank the Conservative team for tabling this motion as we look forward to the post-COVID era and the countless challenges that must be solved for Canada to build back stronger.

I first want to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on Canada's tourism industry and why the federal government must move to provide specific supports for those who work in tourism. The time for dithering is over, the time for uncertainty is over. There is no more time for platitudes or excuses. Canadians deserve a plan, they deserve certainty, and our country, now more than ever, needs action.

Today we are talking about specific supports for the workers hardest hit by the pandemic. In Oshawa, some of the hardest-hit people are those in the tourism and hospitality sectors. One of the hardest-hit subsectors of the tourism industry has been independent travel agents. For example, Tracy Turberfield, one of my local constituents, has not had access to any federal government support programs for her business throughout COVID-19. Between the lack of people travelling and the rigid eligibility requirements for government support, her business has ground to a halt.

Tracy has been hard at work for 15 years and does not want to see some utopian reimagination of the Canadian economy. What she needs and wants is an economic recovery that enables her to rebuild her company. Imagine being in Tracy's position, being asked to pay back commissions for trips cancelled due to the pandemic and a near halt to all travel, and yet the government has offered no direct support. How can she rebuild her business? How on earth is she supposed to contribute to our economic recovery? Tracy has even shared that between the pandemic restrictions and being left behind by the government, it has caused a huge toll on her mental health, a toll that could be mitigated by direct sector-targeted support for independent travel agents.

Another constituent left behind by the government is Amber Derby, a former employee at the Holiday Inn in downtown Oshawa. Despite support being provided to businesses in the hospitality industry, Amber was still laid off. The fact is that much of the funding made available to businesses has not trickled down to the workers. While it is important to ensure that businesses can stay afloat, workers and those who are the bedrock of our economy cannot be left behind.

Even now, despite looking to expand her skill set, for Amber the training programs available are just not affordable for her. The Prime Minister promised that no one would be left behind, yet Amber and hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the hospitality industry have endured just that, being left behind by the government. Like Tracy and many other Canadians, the effect of being left behind has had adverse consequences for Amber's mental health.

Another of the top tourist attractions in Oshawa is Parkwood Estate. The site is the former home of R.S. McLaughlin, the first president of General Motors Canada. It is one of the top venues for high-budget movie sets in Canada. The attraction is managed by its wonderful curator Samantha George, and it is still suffering from lack of visitors.

As any tourism expert will say, the presence of quality restaurants is key to any economy looking to attract visitors. Last week I had lunch at the Bulldog Pub & Grill, an Oshawa favourite, where I had a chance to speak to owners Julie and Victor. They have been trying their best to support their workers throughout the pandemic, but have not been able to qualify for government programs like the emergency wage subsidy since they bought the business mere months before the pandemic hit. They had no prior year's information available to qualify for the programs even though the business was a viable for more than a decade under the previous owners.

The government has to provide more flexibility to small and medium-sized businesses like the Bulldog so they can continue supporting the local economy, as well as employing workers who rely on the wages and tips from their jobs. With the government's incredibly slow procurement of rapid testing and rollout of vaccines, those working in tourism are going to continue needing help. If the government had done its job, perhaps workers in the tourism sector would not need support at this time, but that dream is not the reality. The government must act now to support those in these industries.

Another industry we have to talk about is the charitable sector. This is another sector the government must target with specific supports, as laid out in our motion.

In Oshawa, we are known for having one of the biggest hearts in the GTA. Our charities are busier than ever helping our communities and those in need.

For example, Lianne from the Back Door Mission right across the street from my constituency office in downtown Oshawa has been working hand in hand with Simcoe Street United Church to provide food, medical services and financial assistance to Oshawa's vulnerable. I was happy to drop by last week and donate some essential items.

Sherry Denesha from St. Vincent's Kitchen in downtown Oshawa wants to reopen and continue serving low-cost meals to the less fortunate. However, the pandemic has ground the kitchen's work to halt and it needs to $200,000 in funding to continue serving the less fortunate, as St. Vincent's has been doing for 30 years.

Rita Nave, just down the street at Simcoe Hall Settlement House, helps thousands of Oshawa residents every year with its food bank and after-school programs for kids.

Just last week, I attended the Coldest Night of the Year walk at the Oshawa Refuge Youth Outreach Centre, led by Clarence Keesman. The refuge has helped homeless youth and other low-income, at-risk youth since 1999 and its work has not stopped because of the pandemic.

We also have a strong history of supporting our military and our veterans in Oshawa. People like Brian Wilkins from the Oshawa Naval Veterans' Club and Mike Gimblett from the 420 Wing Oshawa provide an essential service to our veteran heroes. Because of the slow rollout of government funding for veterans, those who have stayed afloat are still hanging on by a thread but are in dire need.

These are people who define Oshawa for what it is: one of the most caring communities in Canada. They form the foundation of Oshawa. If the people working at these charities that provide life-saving assistance to our communities do not get the support they need, those who are at risk or have low incomes or anyone else who reaps the benefits of these great organizations may be forced to face a future without the necessary support.

With respect to our airlines, now that we are moving into the post-COVID era, it is expected that more Canadians will be looking to travel both domestically and internationally after travel restrictions at home and around the world are relaxed. Not only will this serve to boost the struggling tourism and airline sectors, it will also provide an opportunity for everyday Canadians to bring back some semblance of normalcy after living through a global pandemic that has been quite traumatic for many.

Ensuring that airlines can stay afloat through repayable loans is not just critical for the future of the Canadian economy, but also for the health of everyday Canadians. Travelling has been shown to be of significant benefit to both physical and mental health. For example, studies have shown that travel reduces the risk of heart attacks and heart disease and death. A recent Cornell University study found that merely planning travel increases overall happiness.

While these facts may seem a bit disconnected from the primary objective of building back a stronger economy, we also need to consider the impacts of support on the physical and mental health of Canadians. Providing repayable loans to airlines is a key to the recovery of the economy and thus, as well, the health of everyday Canadians.

I cannot end my speech without talking about the effects of this motion on women. If this motion is passed and the government adopts its provisions moving forward, it is obvious that the economy itself will benefit. However, in my eyes, one of the most critical aspects of the provisions in this motion would be its effect on women. Yesterday, we celebrated International Women's Day, and while it is good to look to the time and to celebrate the contributions of women in our world and our country and communities, it is also a time to reflect on the challenges women still face on a daily basis, challenges that have been amplified by COVID-19.

The sectors that this motion proposes for specific targeted support, mainly in tourism, hospitality and the charitable sector, are all heavily dominated by women in their respective workforces. Over 50% of employees in tourism are women, and 60% in hospitality and 80% in non-profits. These statistics show the disproportionate impacts of this pandemic on the economic status of women in Canada, making it all the more important that the government consider the interests of women from coast to coast to coast as we move forward with the economic recovery.

If the provisions of this motion are applied, the women who have been negatively impacted by the pandemic would receive greater support and the risk of their being left behind during the economic recovery would be dramatically reduced, especially for those working in the specific sectors mentioned in the motion.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard a number of Conservatives today talk about the Liberals not being able to get their legislative agenda in order and saying that this is the reason the Conservatives have not been willing to participate in making sure this gets moved along as quickly as possible.

Basically, they have been blaming the government for not allowing enough time for this debate and, therefore, somehow, as a result of that, they have decided they will not sit longer into the evening to get these important pieces of legislation through to support Canadians. They are basically saying that because they are upset with the federal government's inability to deliver and its failure to do a good job, they are going to hijack Canadians' payments and supports to express their displeasure with the government.

Would this member like to comment on why the Conservative Party, the opposition, is using these delaying tactics at the expense of Canadians who need these supports?