Debates of May 25th, 2021

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #119

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Committee Study of Bill C-216—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 11, 2021, by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot concerning the consideration of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

In his remarks, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot explained that the bill had been referred to the committee last March 10 and that its clause-by-clause study would not be until June 7. Until then, the committee had decided to concentrate its efforts on studies carried out under its general mandate.

According to the member, bills referred to a committee must take precedence over its work since they are the subject of a specific order from the House. He cited several extracts from the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which say that committees do not enjoy absolute freedom and that they are constrained by orders of reference and instructions from the House.

He added that since committees are creatures of the House, the consideration of bills should take priority and he asked the Chair to order the committee to proceed with the study of Bill C-216 without delay.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the rules governing the consideration of bills in committee, and of private members’ bills in particular.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is right to say that committees are entities created by the House. They must take account of the orders of reference that the House sends them from time to time, particularly in the case of specific instructions. The House has also given them the power to undertake their own studies under Standing Order 108. A committee may, therefore, decide to study questions related to the mandate, organization, administration or operation of the department or departments within its purview.

As for private members’ bills referred to committee, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us at page 1,158 in footnote 21:

Until 1997, there was no time limit on committee consideration of a private Member’s bill. [...] In April 1997, and again in November 1998, the Standing Orders were amended to require committees considering a private Member’s public bill to report back to the House within a time limit.

Since then, there has been an established framework for the study of these bills and committees must comply with the deadlines prescribed by Standing Order 97.1. They must consider private members' bills within 60 sitting days following the date of reference. If it is not possible to proceed by the established deadline, a committee can request a 30-sitting-day extension, failing which the committee is deemed to have reported without amendment. The rules in place thus prevent a private members' bill from remaining in committee indefinitely without being studied.

Practice is explicit regarding the moment when a committee proceeds with the consideration of bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, specifies at page 1,004 and 1,005 that:

The committee decides when and how it will consider each bill that is referred to it. It also decides when the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will begin.... The period of time devoted to the consideration of the bill is determined by the committee, but it can be circumscribed or restricted by various factors, such as the obligation to report the bill within a prescribed time pursuant to a special order of the House or to a time allocation motion, or due to limits the committee has placed upon itself by adopting motions to that effect.

Each committee therefore remains the master of its proceedings and decides how it will organize its work, within the limits, of course, of the mandate and powers conferred by the House.

Thus, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, barring any indication to the contrary from the House, the Committee has 60 sitting days to deal with this bill and must report it to the House by September 27, 2021.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 28 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora has seven minutes and 30 seconds remaining in his time.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to resume my remarks.

Before question period, I was talking about some of the ways the government has been spending a lot more money and getting worse results for Canadians. I used the incidence of food insecurity in the north and the government's approach with nutrition north as a good example of that. I will go into more detail about some of the concerns I have with the budget, but I am in a good mood today, and I want to mention something in the budget that I am cautiously optimistic about, something that I was happy to see in the budget.

I was happy to see sector-specific support for tourism. I believe it is $500 million under the tourism relief fund. I know many colleagues on my side of the House are happy to see this funding. We have been calling for this funding for quite some time, because we know that tourist outfitters and industries have been hit very hard as a result of the pandemic. We know that all too well in northwestern Ontario. Many camps have not been able to open and have been losing revenue for the past year. A number of outfitters have told me that if they lose this summer or most of this summer, they likely will not be able to operate and will have to close their doors for good.

I say I am “cautiously optimistic” about this funding, because we know the government has brought forward a number of measures that were supposed to support small businesses last year and, with rigid criteria for accessing the programs, many operations, particularly the seasonal operations, were not able to access that, and many of those that were able to access the supports found they was not strong enough to cover what they needed for the year. I will be watching to see where those funds end up. I am, as I say, optimistic, but cautious, and hopeful those funds will get where they need to get to.

Again, as I alluded to, the government has been spending a lot of money. This is a big spending budget, and the Liberals like to pat themselves on the back for that, I am concerned about this budget for a couple of reasons. One of them is that there is a clear lack of direction in the budget. The stimulus programs we need to get our economy going again should be focused and time-limited. They should be focused on creating jobs in all sectors and in all regions, and that includes supporting natural resources, forestry and mining that create so many good, well-paying union jobs across northern Ontario and are major drivers of our economy as well.

Of course, as I mentioned before question period, my most pressing concern with the budget is that there is no plan to get back to balance, and I am concerned about that for a number of reasons. Before I get into that, I will maybe get ahead of some of the members across the way here, and I will note that Conservatives have supported many of the necessary stimulus programs every step of the way. We believe in supporting Canadians and getting them through this crisis. There is no question about it. Regardless of what members on the other side will say, the voting records show that we have stood with Canadians and in many ways. We were able to pass things unanimously. We were able to bring forward a number of suggestions to fix some of these programs and make them better for Canadians. In some cases the government took our advice, and that was great.

However, we know that we cannot continue to spend into oblivion, as the Liberals have set us up to do. We believe the stimulus must be targeted, but it must be phased out responsibly, so that we can preserve public services for future generations. These are critical public services that future generations are going to be relying on, and we know that every dollar we spend on servicing our debt is a dollar that is being diverted away from Canadians; it is a dollar that is not going toward these critical services, and of course young people are going to bear the burden of that.

If the Liberals continue their high spending plan, we know we will receive either major cuts to services or higher taxes, or some terrible combination of both of them. That is why Canada's Conservatives have been advocating instead for a responsible, measured approach to phase out many of these targeted stimulus programs to get us back to balance, to get our economy going again and to ensure that we are protecting those critical services.

I want to make one more point about this. We often hear from the Liberals and other parties that the Conservatives are only focused on dollars and cents and we just want to balance the budget to say, “Check: We can balance a budget for fiscal reasons.” However, that is certainly not the case. A balanced budget is not an end in itself. It is a means to preserve these public services for future generations. It is a means to leave the next generation and those afterward with better lives than we had. I believe that is a goal that we all share, and it is why we cannot continue down this path and burden young people with this debt.

Young people are concerned about going to school. They are concerned about getting jobs after school. They are concerned about being able to afford homes. They are concerned about climate change. They are concerned about so many things, and the Liberal government has just given them another thing to be concerned about: They need to worry about what sorts of public services they will have in the future. Again, if we continue down this path, it will not look great for them.

Overall, that is primarily why I cannot support the implementation of this budget and why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague from Kenora, I have tremendous concerns for the tourism sector. Unlike him, I do not think that the $500 million announced comes close to what is needed for the sector. There was a further billion dollars announced for Destination Canada to advertise Canadian tourism, which normally I would cheer. I have had owners of very substantial tourism operations in my own riding express sad concern that the promotion from Destination Canada, the $1 billion, will be for places that no longer exist.

How can we move to do more to assist the tourism sector as we move forward through a very tough year for it?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. That is why I noted that I was cautiously optimistic about the funding that has been allocated in this budget. I am happy to see it, but we know that tourism operators are really hurting and they need a lot of support.

To the member's question, what I have been hearing across my riding is that there is only so far that these programs are going to go. There is only so much these programs will be able to do to keep these businesses afloat. At the end of the day, what they need is a plan for a safe and gradual reopening so that they can get back to operating and have the capacity that will allow them to make the profits that they need. That is especially true in northwestern Ontario, as many tourists come primarily from the United States. It is very important.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We have just finished a study about rural women and how they have been impacted by COVID, but they also face a lot of other challenges. The committee talked about lack of access to services, housing, violence against women and the services and supports that are there.

One of the key things is transportation. I know that Ontario Northland has been gone for far too long, but now the disappearance of Greyhound is extremely concerning, considering the access that women have to services that are typically more urban-centred. Could the member talk about the impact on his constituents, and what his party would like to see in terms of access to transportation services for women in the north?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in seeing the report and the work the member's committee has done.

It is a very good point. I could probably talk for 10 minutes about that, which I am not allowed to, but the point the member made about the difference in services between urban and rural I could not have said better myself, to be quite honest. The government needs to do a lot more to support rural communities and rural women and to ensure they have all the services they need, whether it is transportation or health care in northern Ontario.

I could go on for quite some time, but I agree with the member that there needs to be a greater focus on these services in rural northern Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to share his thoughts on the budget's green recovery funding, which is around $17 billion. That sounds like a heck of a lot of money, but it is actually exactly what the government will have spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

This budget continues to underwrite rising greenhouse gas emissions by continuing to invest in the oil and gas industry even though it is still so bad for the environment. I would like to know if my colleague thinks Canada can actually reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets if the government continues to invest so heavily in this industry.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my friend from the Bloc and I disagree on this issue quite a bit. I and many members of my party believe that we need to be working with our oil and gas and natural resource industries to ensure we are helping them be a part of getting to net zero and reaching our climate goals, not demonizing and attacking them in the way the Liberal government has.

I respect the question from the member, but I respectfully disagree with the assumption.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the implementation bill we are debating today will put a stamp on federal politics for many years. That is why it is crucial that we, as parliamentarians, take the time to analyze this bill and to ask the difficult questions that must be put to the government. It goes without saying that this is not a small bill. That is understandable given the context.

Given the little time at my disposal, my comments will focus on measures contained in divisions 1, 5, 6, 9, 24 and 32.

I hope the government will answer our written questions, as it is in the interest of all Quebeckers and all Canadians for each question to be answered. It is the government's role to obtain the support of the House for its budget and its bill, and it is our role to question it.

Some measures in Bill C-30 are good, such as extending until September 25 critical support programs like the wage subsidy and rent relief. I would remind the House, however, that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget since the government ignored our two key demands, namely to provide adequate and recurring health funding, which was and still is a demand of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, as well as to increase the old age security pension for seniors 65 and up.

As I was saying, obviously some measures in the budget are good, but when it comes to those two things, the government ignored common sense by offering one-time cosmetic solutions to problems that are much more serious and well documented.

Worse than that, the House of Commons adopted a motion that goes with our demand. I can understand that the government does not want to cave to the Bloc Québécois, but I should remind it that it has to at least consider the will of the people represented by those elected to the House.

I will read a few very clear lines from the motion.

That the House:

...(c) highlight the work of Quebec and the provinces in responding to the health crisis and note the direct impact on their respective budgets; and

(d) call on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers...

Again, the government must significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers.

The government needs to get the message we have sent over and over. Health transfers need to go up from 22% to 35%. Unfortunately, Bill C-30 includes just a one-time health transfer increase, which is downright unambitious. As fate would have it, the 2021 budget deficit is precisely $28 billion lower than expected, which is pretty ironic seeing as that is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. The government would have us believe its political choice, which will compromise everyone's health, is actually a budget choice.

The government's handling of old age security is also more politically motivated than anything else. The Liberals are creating two classes of seniors: those they can buy and those they cannot.

Let me be clear: I will not object to some seniors receiving the help they need, as outlined in Bill C-30. However, I do object to the Liberals thinking that financial insecurity starts at a specific age, when in fact it is much more the result of retiring and leaving the workforce. Furthermore, what the Liberals are proposing to give is clearly insufficient for vulnerable people, regardless of their age. Sixty-three dollars a month is not even enough to buy a few days' worth of groceries. If the Liberals thought they could change the world with that, they are mistaken.

Also, this measure is a campaign promise that was made two years ago and was clearly thought up before the price increases caused by COVID-19. When it comes into effect, people between the ages of 65 and 74, or half the current recipients, will be very eager to reach their 75th birthday. Unfortunately, they will realize that pensions will not be much more generous than they have been.

In addition, in spite of what the Liberals might say, some of them have tried to deny the truth. One minister said, and I quote:

…contrary to what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting, we chose to give more to the most vulnerable seniors, instead of giving less to a greater number of people.

I am not the best at math, but $63 is less than $110. I want everyone to know and take note that the Bloc Québécois is more generous toward seniors than the Liberals, and it will continue to call for a substantial increase of $110 a month for all seniors, as it has over the past few years.

Another point on which we disagree with the Liberals is about how Bill C-30 lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime. I do not need to paint a picture. The Bloc Québécois and Quebec are, of course, strongly opposed to that.

It is very simple. Division of Bill C-30 is the realization of a very dear dream of Toronto's financial elite, the dream of stripping Quebec of its financial sector. That would be done at the expense of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, who would have to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to fund Bay Street's supremacy in a jurisdiction that has been repeatedly confirmed as provincial.

Everyone in Quebec is against it and is speaking with one voice, which is something that is seldom seen: political parties, business communities, the financial sector, labour-sponsored funds and unions. In addition to the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly, there is also the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Centre corporation, the Desjardins Group, Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Air Transat, Transcontinental, Canam, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale, Cogeco, Molson, and the list goes on.

A strong Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec means thousands of jobs in North America's only French-speaking metropolis. Nearly 150,000 jobs in Quebec depend on it, and $20 billion is generated. This plan would inevitably result in a shift of regulation activities outside Quebec and is an attack on our ability to keep our head offices and preserve our businesses. One would have to be blind and deaf not to see it. Quebeckers can count on the Bloc, for we will do everything in our power to block this bill.

On another note, as many people know, I am the Bloc Québécois critic for international co-operation and the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Accordingly, it is understandable that I am very concerned about division 6 of Bill C-30 dealing with the Sergei Magnitsky Law. Section 7 of that act, which requires banks, insurance companies and loan companies to disclose certain information on a monthly basis, will be amended by Bill C-30 to make that requirement quarterly, which I simply do not understand. I see this as reducing the obligations of financial institutions and a setback for human rights. It does nothing to ensure enforcement or to strengthen monitoring activities, when it is well known that these reports are of paramount importance to the legislation's effectiveness. I hope my hon. colleagues will have some answers on this matter.

I must say that I am quite baffled to see that division 9 of Bill C-30 removes the requirement that the superintendent of financial institutions approve changes to multi-employer pension plans in which the employer's contributions are set out in an agreement with employees. I will refrain from pointing out that the former finance minister probably wishes he had thought of this himself. Jokes aside, what is the reason for lowering the requirements for this specific type of pension plan? Do pension plans of big companies have funding issues? Is the stock market in such bad shape that pension plans are having solvency issues that warrant relaxing the laws? To me, this division of the bill sounds like the government is eliminating an important safeguard that ensures pension plans remain solvent. The government will have to explain this sooner or later.

I am running out of time, but I would be remiss if I did not speak about division 24 of Bill C-30. I commend the fact that the government wishes to give more leave to parents whose child has died or disappeared so they can reorganize their lives and deal with the tragic reality of the death of a child. However, I am disappointed that the government is agreeing to double benefits for these circumstances, but refusing to double EI sickness benefits, a subject that I had the opportunity to speak about two weeks ago.

I cannot oppose extending eligibility of this benefit to parents of a child under the age of 25 who is deceased or has disappeared, and I cannot oppose increasing the maximum length of leave from 52 to 108 weeks. One question remains and it is important that the government clarify it. If parents are separated, are both entitled to these benefits or is it custody that determines eligibility? It is important to know this because parents are separated in a growing number of Quebec and Canadian families.

In closing, the budget mentions and praises the Quebec child care system several times, claiming to be inspired by it. The reference to an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec is a positive sign, but only if this agreement comes with full and unconditional compensation for the total cost of the program's measures. That money could be used to help with the economic recovery or with the health care system, which is still underfunded because of the federal government's laxness. This Canada-wide child care program is another attempt at federal interference and cannot be seen otherwise.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, works very hard for his region.

He spoke quite a bit about seniors and the hardships they are facing, which is something I have been hearing a lot about in my riding as well. I gave a statement about this in the House earlier today.

I could not agree more with the member on the fact that the Liberal government has not done enough to support seniors and give those who built our country and their communities the supports they deserve.

Has the member heard any specific concerns from those in his riding when it comes to the lack of supports for seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that question. I appreciate it, and I know that we are on the same page on this file.

Like him, I have gotten a lot of calls to my office from people who are angry about the federal Liberal government's new measure. It is not just people who are 75 and under and who will not receive the increase who are angry. It is also those who are aged 75 and up who will receive the increase but who have a brother, sister, cousin or friend who will not be entitled to it. These people feel bad and are wondering why they are entitled to the increase while others they know are not.

My hon. colleague reminded us that these people built Quebec and Canada. We need to stop looking at seniors the way the Liberals do, as though they are a burden. Instead, we need to change the paradigm and ask ourselves what we owe these people who built our country. We owe them everything.

The government it not doing its job right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

This budget makes it clear that the Liberals prefer flashy announcements about big things and national programs that seem really great, like child care, to investing in areas that really need support.

We already have programs through Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions and Transport Canada that help small regions revitalize themselves and renovate old buildings. Those programs never get enough funding.

For example, there is an aquatics complex in Matane, in my riding, that will not get the funding it needs. The same goes for the Mont-Joli airport. I am sure there are projects in my colleague's riding that will never get the money they need because the government does not allocate enough funds to those programs.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he think the government should help regions like ours by investing in things that seem a little less sexy rather than spend money on big, shiny programs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Yes, once again, the federal government looked at what the provinces were doing and decided to do the same thing, even though it is outside its jurisdiction, instead of minding its own business and taking action where it has the right to act. For instance, the Canada summer jobs program should be expanded much more, because many applications and people are being rejected. This year, in my riding alone, the Canada summer jobs program was short $1.9 million.

Instead of sticking its nose into an area of provincial jurisdiction and spending on programs that will never see the light of day, like the plan to plant two billion trees that was announced with great fanfare during the 2019 election campaign and for which the money never materialized, the government should, as my colleague just said, invest in programs like Canada summer jobs, new horizons for seniors and CED. Then the federal government could do its job properly.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate this afternoon on Bill C-30, which is the government's first budget implementation act from this year's budget.

When I approach legislation that comes before the House of Commons, my first priority is always to look to see how this impacts people, families, communities and the businesses located within my riding of Perth—Wellington. What I also look for when I review these pieces of legislation is what might be missing, what important aspects might be missing from legislation and how that would impact the people of Perth—Wellington and by extension, people of the region and of the country.

There is no question that COVID-19 has had a significant and ongoing impact on our communities, on individuals, on their health and on their lives. Sadly, more than 25,000 Canadians have died due to COVID-19, countless others have fallen sick and some are continuing to experience the long-term health impacts of COVID-19.

From an economic standpoint, the ongoing lockdowns have created challenges for businesses. They have created stress, anxiety and feelings of loneliness. Many Canadians are feeling isolated because of this ongoing challenge. Coast to coast to coast businesses have had to shut down, have had to lay off their employees and, in some cases, have gone out of business altogether.

A country without a strong and vibrant small business sector is not really much of a country at all. We rely on small businesses as the lifeblood of our communities and the employer of so many Canadians.

As the official opposition, there is a duty on our part to not only review legislation, but many times to encourage and promote improvements. We have done this countless times throughout this pandemic.

I reflect back to early in the pandemic when our opposition members criticized but also encouraged the government to come to the table with a more generous wage subsidy. When the government initially announced 10%, it was us as the opposition who encouraged Liberals to come to the table with a more meaningful option.

The same goes for the back-to-work bonus that we proposed throughout the summer, encouraging that incentive that when jobs came available, people were able to take them without losing their entire CERB payments.

Unfortunately, though, when it comes to this budget and this budget implementation act, it looks more like a pre-election plan rather than a meaningful plan forward for recovery.

I draw the House's attention to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's May 5 report in which he writes:

The Government did not make a clear link between the measures in Budget 2021 and its $70-to-$100 billion stimulus plan announced in the Fall Economic Statement. Rather, Budget 2021 combines $36.8 billion in additional COVID-19 spending along with other new spending...

Once again, we see the Liberal government using the guise of COVID-19 for other non-related funding and spending.

This week is Tourism Week and the riding of Perth—Wellington is certainly proud to host so many amazing tourism attractions, some that I highlighted earlier today in Statements by Members. I think of the Stratford Festival, the Stratford Summer Music, SpringWorks, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and, of course, Drayton Entertainment.

You will know Drayton Entertainment, Mr. Speaker, because one of the theatres is also located in your riding. Originally, the first theatre, the Drayton Festival Theatre, was in Drayton and is now in the township of Mapleton. Drayton Entertainment is one of those amazing theatres with an amazing offering each year across its seven theatres.

One unique thing about Drayton Entertainment is that it has not in the past received operational funding from the government. Instead, it has been self-sufficient, and relied on donors' funds and box office revenues to make its impact in the community. Unfortunately, this success has also hindered it throughout this COVID-19 pandemic. Last spring, when the government announced the emergency support fund for cultural, heritage and sport organizations, organizations like Drayton Entertainment were not eligible because it had not received past funding through the Canada Council for the Arts.

I raised this issue in the House early in the pandemic in the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sadly, that issue has not yet been addressed.

Going forward in this budget, we saw another commitment to the recovery fund for arts, culture and sports sectors. This might be a positive sign, but I worry, and I know that many arts and cultural organizations worry, that the same criteria will once again be used for this funding and thereby wonderful artistic and cultural organizations, such as Drayton Entertainment, will be unable to access these important funds. I will call on the government very clearly to ensure that this funding envelope is directed to all arts and cultural organizations as they look for recovery.

Another concern that we have had with the government spending on COVID-19 relief is the impact on new businesses. I hear from far too many constituents in my riding who signed a lease just before the pandemic hit, or who took over a business just before the pandemic hit or the week the pandemic hit. I heard of one constituent who literally signed their lease on March 13, 2020, and because of the pandemic's impact on their business, they have never been able to really get off the ground. Since day one, the government relief packages have not addressed new businesses. Not only did these business owners have the misfortune of starting their businesses during a worldwide global pandemic, they are also fighting with their own government to get the support they are in dire need of.

We called on this before. We have raised this in question period. We have raised this in debate. We have raised this at committees. I am imploring government members to please ensure that, going forward, government support programs for businesses are targeted and are able to be accessed by new business owners who only had the misfortune of starting during a global pandemic.

I want to talk a little about division 37 of the budget implementation act. Those Canadians paying attention may find it strange that within an omnibus budget implementation act the government also proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act. Colleagues may know that within the corridors of this very building, many are referring to division 37 as the John Nater vindication act, because it fixes the clause that I made an amendment on in the Procedures and House Affairs Committee during the previous Parliament. I was adding back the word “knowingly” in the rule about publishing false statements that affect election results.

Sadly, the government did not adopt that small but meaningful amendment. What happened? The government was taken to court, where the court ruled that this aspect of the Canada Elections Act was unconstitutional. Instead of relying on the advice of the official opposition in the previous Parliament, the government instead went with its misinformed approach. The result was a finding that it was unconstitutional. In a scathing decision, Justice Davies wrote about the advice that came from the Privy Council Office which is, in fact, the Prime Minister's own department. Justice Davies wrote, “More importantly, the advice given to the standing committee by Mr. Morin,” a senior policy adviser, “that the inclusion of the word knowingly in section 91.1 was unnecessary, redundant and confusing was, for several reasons, incorrect and potentially misleading.” At paragraph 58 he went on to state, “To the extent that Mr. Morin testified about the import of removing knowingly from section 91.1, his comments were inaccurate and cannot be taken as reflecting Parliament's true intention.”

In the other place, Senator Batters tried to take the president of the privy council to task on this matter, but he refused to take responsibility and he refused to hold his own department accountable for the misinformation that its public servants provided and that resulted in an unconstitutional finding by the courts.

I want to say this very clearly. I will not be supporting this budget implementation act because it does not address the meaningful concerns of people in Perth—Wellington, who are just trying to get ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with a great deal of interest. I know that tourism and the performing arts play a big role in his riding, as they do in mine.

We are coming up on July, when CERB benefits will be cut by 40%. In my riding I am finding lots of people who work in the performing arts, hospitality and tourism do not have their jobs back yet.

Does the member support the government's proposal in this bill to cut the CERB benefit by 40% on July 1? If people do not need the CERB because they are working, that is great, but why the arbitrary cut in the benefit for those who are not back to work yet?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member reflects on the hospitality industry, the tourism industry and all the industries that have not recovered yet from the global pandemic and likely will not recover until some time in the distant future. They are likely considered to be the last to respond.

The member talked about a specific aspect of this bill, in terms of the CERB reductions. I do not support this bill, including that part of it. We need to ensure there is a targeted approach to the tourism industry and those industries that will take the longest time to recover from this global pandemic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Perth—Wellington for his presentation. He talked a lot about cultural and tourism businesses, which have been affected by the pandemic.

What caught my attention when I read this bill was the fact that small charitable businesses are excluded from the definition of “small business”. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this exclusion.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I really appreciated her comments about the arts and culture industries.

In the charitable sector, the fact that non-profits do not have access to certain programs is a big issue. In Perth—Wellington, I have heard from non-profit businesses that applied for certain government programs but did not qualify. The government needs to fix this to help non-profit businesses.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the tourism sector, which hires a lot of young people. That is what my comment is about.

He is probably aware of the Brock study in 2018, before the pandemic, that found that 65% of software engineer graduates leave Canada, and around 30% of other STEM professionals leave. This is problematic. The Liberals will say they are throwing more money at education and training, but when people are trained and they are leaving the country, that is a problem.

Could the member comment on how this budget is failing young people, especially our youngest and brightest who graduate with great degrees but have to go offshore for employment?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all my colleague for Oshawa is doing in his community to support the hard-working families of Oshawa.

He is 100% right. We should be attracting the best and brightest to Canada, and keeping those people in Canada. When someone graduates from college or university with high-skilled job training and then goes to an international destination, that is something we need to combat. The way we do it is to ensure that Canada is a welcoming and hospitable place for businesses to set up.

We can look at places like Silicon Valley, which is attracting bright, smart young individuals. We need those people to come to Canada to access the great things we have to offer here. We could do that by having a meaningful conversation about what we need to do to encourage businesses to relocate here in Canada, rather than chasing them away to international destinations.