John Nater

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my dear colleague from Brantford—Brant, in his capacity and expertise as a former prosecutor, how he reacted to some of the concerns that were raised throughout this process, including the facts that the RCMP were called in and that the Auditor General was working with the Canada Border Service Agency. It was the CBSA that called in the RCMP and failed to inform the Auditor General of a criminal investigation. Given his background, could he comment on that?

[Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, October 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would just point out that the first round of opening speeches has not even been completed yet—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2023]

With regard to the 42nd Parliament's Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, giving the Information Commissioner the power to make binding orders related to access to information requests: (a) how many binding orders has the Information Commissioner made since the bill received royal assent in June 2019, in total and broken down by each government institution subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (ATIP); (b) how many of the orders in (a) were (i) abided by, (ii) ignored, (iii) appealed or challenged in court; (c) for each order in (b) that was ignored, what was the (i) order given by the Information Commissioner, (ii) subject of the original ATIP request, (iii) reason for ignoring the order, (iv) title of the individual responsible for the decision to ignore the request; and (d) for each order in (b) that was appealed or challenged in court, what was the (i) order given by the Information Commissioner, (ii) subject of the original ATIP request, (iii) title of the individual responsible for appealing or challenging the order in court, (iv) total of the legal fees incurred to date by the recipient of the order, (v) outcome or status of the appeal?

[Business of the House, June 15th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I know all members have been patiently waiting for the famous Thursday question.

Could the government House leader please inform the House what business the government intends to bring before the House for the remainder of this week and into next week?

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

That was in the dissenting report.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, in our dissenting report, we were open to a compromise to allow all elements of hybrid Parliament to proceed for one year. Our clear requirement was that there ought to be a sunset clause so that, one year after the start of the next Parliament, the new Parliament would have a vote on whether to maintain those provisions. This was the compromise that, as opposition MPs, we were willing to make. Although we do not particularly like the provisions of hybrid Parliament, we were willing to make that compromise in order to come to a consensus among parliamentarians, but the requirements were the sunset clause and the vote one year into the next Parliament.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, Centre Block has a carving in the old House of Commons chamber, and part of that carving represents the 20 members who must contribute to quorum. The current Liberal government would be doing away with the constitutionally mandated quorum requirement that, at all times, 20 members must be present in the House of Commons. Because of the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement, they would do away with something as fundamental as the constitutionality of quorum, where members must be physically present in order to do that. It is disappointing to see the efforts of the Liberal government to avoid accountability on these important issues.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect. We had not proceeded to clause-by-clause until the Liberals brought in a guillotine motion in the House of Commons. To say that we were filibustering clause-by-clause is 100% inaccurate, so perhaps the member could refresh her memory, because that is not what happened. They came with a guillotine motion, literally in the dead of night, to force every clause through without debate or discussion. Every debate was debated in the dead of night.

To remind members who are wondering at home, the bill in question was Bill C-11. This was the Liberal effort to regulate the Internet and to try to force user-generated content to be subject to CRTC regulations. We all know that if we want something to be done poorly, we give it to the CRTC.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the government is doing a number of things that are not good for families. Tonight, tomorrow night and the night after that, we are sitting until midnight. That is not good for families, but that is what the government is doing.

I want to say to the member for Vancouver Centre that we have been doing Parliament virtually now for three years, and we have to plug in our headsets in order to participate.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Edmonton Strathcona, 37 times her party has supported time allocation to ram through the Liberal government's agenda. The New Democrats used to be an opposition party to hold the government to account, and now the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and others are raising this issue. They talked about the Harper regime. There was a cake at that time. We were going to bake a cake for the NDP to celebrate—