As Alvin already noted, the employees (including owner btw, since they are also employees typically) are being paid through CERB. You don't need 2 layers of support. If you pay the business directly, non-viable companies lays off employees (who then are vulnerable) and uses the government incentive to prop up that non-viable business temporarily. There is very little reason why government should be taking on the business risk unless it's a strategically important asset (resources, transportation, food production). Supporting the employees directly ensures that ALL EMPLOYEES impacted get support, whether the business is viable or not.
Small business owners can't survive because they have large fixed cost (rent). Everything else is mainly variable and they should have already cut or minimized. If you were to argue for business support, any incentive to businesses should deal with reduction or waivers of rents so the government doesn't take the business/financial risk. Right now, in the supply chain, the landlords haven't woken up to reality that a lot of their tenants just aren't viable and won't pay. To me, they're the ones who should bear that business risk as that is their business - ensuring their units are rented out to a business that is a going concern.
If all the bars/clubs shut down long term, LANDLORDS would have a serious issue with their cashflow for mortgages. They would reduce their rents to a more reasonable level such that small business owners would return with a more viable and resilient business. If the landlords can't afford their mortgages, then the lenders will own it, and since there is no loan after enforcing on the security, they should be able to charge lower rents (as their acquisition cost now should provide a sufficient return on capital).
