John Nater

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an issue that must be raised.

Let us be clear. We in the Conservative Party believe that there are important issues in our country. In our view, inflation is the most important challenge at this time for Canadians and for Quebeckers.

With respect to the Bloc Québécois motion, it is a question of facts. The Constitution is clear on the provinces. It states:

Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

The Bloc is asking us to vote on a question of fact. The facts are clear. It is in the Constitution. We believe what is written in the Constitution.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, another important feature the Conservative Party believes in is the separation of powers, where each province has the right to do as it sees fit within provincial jurisdiction. We have always respected, as the Conservative Party, the rights of the provinces in their sole jurisdictions, so if the member has concerns about a provincial issue, he ought to run in that provincial legislature and bring his concerns to that place.

We have rights and freedoms, and we have safeguards within each of those. The member will know full well that the case in question was withdrawn by the province in question. What is more, section 33 does provide a five-year sunset clause, wherein the people's elected representatives in each of the provinces have the right to pronounce or re-pronounce on a matter that falls under section 33 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member of the Liberal Party does not like what I am talking about, the fact remains that we are here on an opposition day motion debating a constitutional issue when there are so many other issues that Canadians care about. If the member wants me to talk more about the Constitution and the history of our Constitution, and how we got to the point where we are, I am happy to do that, but I would need his unanimous consent to give me a full hour and a half so that I can debate it in the House in full and at extensive length.

However, I will go back to where we are as a country and why we are seeing constitutional divisions being stoked, and why we are seeing issues like this being brought forward in the House of Commons. It is not because Canadians are happy with the status quo; it is quite the contrary. Canadians are concerned about where their country is going when we see violent crime up 32%, and gang-related homicide up 92%. We are seeing highly connected Liberal lobbyists getting rich while everyday, normal Canadians are dealing with 40-year-high inflation and a tripling of the carbon tax. That is the problem we see here in Canada.

Let us talk about where Conservatives stand on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The Conservative Party has always been a champion of the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We need to look no further than the late, great John Diefenbaker, who had that famous quotation: “Parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.” It falls to us as parliamentarians to stand and defend the rights and privileges of Canadians. Let us remind ourselves that when John Diefenbaker brought in the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Liberal Party members were reluctant supporters of it.

If we think back to the late Jack Pickersgill, he was indeed a fervent adversary of John Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker once said, “Parliament, without Pickersgill, would be like hell without the devil.” However, if we reflect on Pickersgill's comments at the time and read one of his quotations, the Liberal Party in fact had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights. In fact, he said, “Human rights, I believed, are likely to be protected more effectively by an elected Parliament than by appointed judges. Despite the misgivings of a few members, we decided in the Liberal caucus we could not afford politically to oppose the principle of a Bill of Rights.”

Let us not let the Liberals have a monopoly on protecting the rights and privileges of Canadians. We on the Conservative benches have always stood for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In fact, our founding principles as a country have recognized the freedoms of Canadians. The freedoms of Canadians did not magically appear in 1982. We were not all of a sudden granted the rights, freedoms and privileges of Canadians magically on that spring day in 1982. We come from a long evolution of constitutional principles in our country, beginning with the Magna Carta and stretching to the current day.

When we are talking about the motion before us, when we are talking about the divisions that are being stoked, let us remember where we stand as parliamentarians. We stand in this place on behalf of all citizens, on behalf of all Canadians in this country as part of a unified country, recognizing that there are differences within our country.

Let us not forget that it was under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper that it was recognized, by a motion in this place, that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, recognizing that special history, that special, unique culture the Québécois bring to our country, and celebrating that culture, but nonetheless recognizing and reaffirming that it is within a united Canada, a united country. That is part of the history of our Conservative movement: recognizing that there are differences, but that those differences contribute to our country.

I would like to quote George-Étienne Cartier, one of this country's founders. Monsieur Cartier said:

Distinctions of this kind would always exist. [Diversity seems] to be the order of the physical world and of the moral world, as well as in the political world.

But with regard to the objection...that a great nation could not be formed because Lower Canada was in great part French and Catholic, and Upper Canada was British and Protestant, and [the maritime provinces] were mixed, it was [completely] futile.... In our [Confederation] we should have Catholic and Protestant, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and his success would increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy.

That is what this House ought to represent. It ought to represent a diversity of opinion, a diversity of background and a diversity of thought, but together as a Parliament representing Canadians. We must now and always stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We as Conservatives will always stand on the side of the hard-working Canadian families that are working hard each and every day to provide for their families.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and privilege to rise in this House once again and contribute to the debate on today's opposition day motion.

I want to begin by talking a little bit about where we are right now in this country. Sadly, we see reports that 67% of Canadians feel that Canada is broken. The challenge is that after eight years of the Liberal government and Prime Minister, we are seeing motions like this, trying to stoke constitutional crises rather than bringing our country together. After eight years of the Liberal government's failures, we are left with the Liberals trying to stoke fears and divisions in this country rather than focusing on the issues that matter to Canadians, to the constituents of important communities such as Perth—Wellington, Oshawa or Cypress Hills—Grasslands. There, they are concerned about the rising cost of living with 40-year-high inflation.

When Conservatives have a chance in this House to debate, we raise these issues. Just this week we had an opportunity for all members to pronounce themselves on the carbon tax. What happened? Every other party voted no. They voted against giving Canadians a break. They voted against lowering the cost for Canadians of buying groceries, heating their homes and putting gas in their cars so they can take their kids to school and go to work each and every day, along with issues that we think are important, such as bail reform.

Sadly, in this country, in the past year we saw five brave police officers killed in the line of duty. Back in December we saw a police officer in Haldimand—Norfolk killed in the line of duty by an individual who was out on bail. All 13 provincial premiers have called on the government for bail reform. When this House had its opportunity to pronounce itself on bail reform on Monday on our Conservative opposition day—

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I will make full use of the full 120 seconds that I am granted to contribute to this debate.

The reason we are here today is because after eight years of the current Liberal government, Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Therefore, we are here today with a very simple motion. It is a motion that so many Canadians would appreciate; that is to axe the carbon tax. We believe in keeping the heat on by taking the tax off.

This motion is about the people of this country who work hard each and every day to provide for their families. This motion is about the farmers and farm families who go out every day and produce the food that, quite literally, feeds our country and feeds the world. This motion is about the small business owner who goes to work every morning and works hard to provide the services and the goods that will make our country operate. That same small business owner goes home each night and sits around the family kitchen table, adds up the expenses and figures out how to make payroll for the next week and figures out how to make their small business survive. Often, these businesses have been in the family for decades and for generations, and now they are at risk of closing because their expenses keep going up because of the decisions made by the current Liberal government.

This motion is clear: Let us take the carbon tax off; let us stop the inflationary effect that the carbon tax is having on Canadians and let us make sure the farmers, the families, the parents and small business owners are allowed to get ahead.

[Petitions, February 1st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the good people of Perth—Wellington to table a petition signed by 228 constituents in Perth—Wellington calling on the government to adopt human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2023]

With regard to the government’s promise to plant one billion trees: how many trees were planted to date, broken down by province or territory?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2023]

With regard to the government's announcement on August 12, 2021, to invest $1.44 billion into Telesat's advanced low Earth orbit satellite constellation, Telesat Lightspeed: (a) what are the details of government purchases or sales of Telesat equity or shares since the announcement, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) total price or amount, (iii) type of transaction (bought or sold), (iv) number of shares or percentage of equity, (v) share price, if applicable; and (b) what is the government's current equity stake in Telesat in terms of value, percentage of equity, and number of shares?

[Committees of the House, January 30th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the Conservative Party's dissenting report.

While there have been some benefits from some aspects of hybrid Parliament, we have undoubtedly witnessed first-hand a lot of shortcomings with it: ministers having an easier job deflecting accountability and an unacceptable burden being place on our interpreters, to name two.

It is important to bear in mind that our experience with hybrid Parliament was forged as a pandemic necessity, and we have only now started to experience it in the postpandemic context. That is why Conservatives believe the majority's report goes too far and too fast in recommending a permanent extension of a hybrid Parliament practically as it exists today. Conservatives have long believed that permanent changes to procedural arrangements ought to be the result of multi-party consensus.

In the interests of a consensus, Conservatives recommend that the renewal of hybrid proceedings be sunset one year into the next Parliament to allow us time to assess the ongoing implications. We also recommend other changes in the meantime to improve accountability and to reduce the burden on interpreters, such as reverting to entirely in-person chamber proceedings while maintaining the remote voting app and requiring ministers and senior officials to be physically present at committees.

The committee's majority chose not to lay out any details to its vision or to suggest how the new standing orders would read. That has placed the ball in the government House leader's court to craft the way forward. A consensus is within reach. We challenge the government House leader to accept it and to turn his back on the divisive and confrontational approach he has preferred to take on the House's hybrid arrangements.