John Nater

[Canada Disability Benefit Act, October 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and privilege to rise in this House this afternoon to join the debate at second reading of Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act. I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate based on many of the conversations I have had over the last few weeks with constituents in my riding of Perth—Wellington.

I want to highlight one specific conversation I had last week. It happened at the Local Community Food Centre in my riding of Perth—Wellington. For those who may not know what the Community Food Centre is, it is a wonderful institution in my riding. It is called “the Local”. We just call it “the Local”. I like to compare it to a kitchen. It obviously has a kitchen but it is like a family kitchen. When someone enters, they are part of a family. The people who greet them are always there with smiles, are always there with a helping hand and are always there for good conversation. When I was invited to meet with community members to discuss issues affecting those living with disabilities, I was absolutely thrilled and honoured to participate in that conversation.

When I arrived last week on Friday at the Local, there greeting me right away was Uncle Glen, with a big smile. He is not officially my uncle, but I call him Uncle Glen. He is Glen Broadfoot. I think I got a hug as well, which was wonderful. I was offered a cup of coffee by another community member, and we began an important conversation about what is needed for Canadians living with disabilities. If there was one word that came out of that conversation that I think encapsulates this piece of legislation and the hopes for it, it is the word “dignity”, dignity for Canadians living with disabilities.

In that conversation around a circle of chairs last Friday, the word “dignity” came up time and time again. One participant talked about how a haircut was considered a luxury. Another individual talked about how she is not able to have a social life due to the meagre amount she receives each month. She cannot even go for a cup of coffee at the local coffee shop, Tim Hortons, to have that interaction with the community. After hearing stories and challenges like that, it becomes all the more important that we have this conversation today about what we as Canadians and parliamentarians want to see to support Canadians living with disabilities.

Another participant in that conversation talked about how she worked a few hours a week and received a certain amount of money, but every time she worked that hour and every time she brought home that paycheque, money was immediately clawed back from her monthly ODSP cheque. Although she enjoyed and was able to take part in that opportunity, it was clawed back.

When we come to discuss this piece of legislation and what we want to see going forward with the Canada disability benefit act, we want to encapsulate some of the concerns that have been expressed by the people whom I and all members of this House have met with. However, one of the challenges with a bill like Bill C-22 is that it is the bare bones. It is the structure and it is the foundation, but it is not the actual meat on the bones. That will come later through regulations.

I want to use the few moments I have this afternoon to highlight some of the things that I think are necessary, and what I think a lot of Canadians think are necessary, for this piece of legislation and should go into it.

The first thing is about the clawbacks that have been mentioned a few times in this House, either from provincial programs or from other entities or work income. It is my hope that when the regulations for this piece of legislation are developed, there are safeguards in place to ensure that when a dollar is earned through this benefit, a dollar is not taken elsewhere, whether it is through a provincial program or through money that someone may have earned from workplace employment. Too often we see governments at one level give a dollar and governments at another level take a dollar away, so that is the first thing I hope to see happen with this piece of legislation.

I want to highlight one opportunity that I think is there. Two parliaments ago, in the 42nd Parliament, the House debated a bill entitled “Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities Act”, which was Bill C-395, and it stood in the name of the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton. It was a bill that would have ensured that when people earned employment income they were not negatively impacted in their other benefits, including and most specifically disability benefits. Therefore, I hope that, when this bill is considered at committee, and we expect it to be taken up in the next few days, some of the principles from that bill are enshrined within this one to ensure there is not that disadvantage.

The other thing I very much hope we will see through this piece of legislation once it is implemented through regulatory means is that it is done with a disabilities' lens in mind. What I mean by that is to ensure this program is set up in such a way that it is clear, understandable and easy to use for anyone making applications to the program. We know that as Canadians we file a lot of information with various government entities, whether it be the Canada Revenue Agency or Service Canada, which already have a lot of the information needed to process this type of benefit. It is my hope that when the regulations come into place they are done in a clear, efficient and easy-to-use way so that Canadians living with disabilities from coast to coast to coast are able to access the benefits that ought to be provided through this benefit without additional means, barricades and blockages to prevent them from obtaining these important benefits.

As I wrap up my comments and thoughts on this piece of legislation, I want to read a couple of very short postcards I have received from constituents in my riding, which I think help to summarize the importance of the disability benefit and supporting Canadians living with disabilities.

One constituent wrote to me stating, “We must take care of our most vulnerable. Only by lifting others up do we lift ourselves up.” Another constituent wrote, “It's such an important thing to look after and aid the people living with disabilities in our city, in our province and in our country. The challenges of poverty associated with disabilities is demoralizing. Please debate and pass this bill.” Those are just two examples of constituents in my riding who have been pushing for this important benefit for a long time.

As I wrap up my comments, I want to once again thank the many constituents who have contacted me on this piece of legislation. I specifically want to point out the good work that is being done by the folks at the Local Community Food Centre, which is working to bring all community members together in a safe and welcoming place that respects and promotes the dignity of persons living with disabilities.

[Food Day in Canada Act, October 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his great proposal.

Yes, I know that a lot of maple syrup is produced in Quebec and in his riding. We also have great maple syrup producers in Perth—Wellington. Their product is very good. This bill also presents an opportunity to celebrate those who produce these very important products.

[Food Day in Canada Act, October 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I will again say that I hope, with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we will be able to get this bill passed in this Parliament to formally recognize it.

On the subject of resiliency, the member is absolutely right. Farmers and farm families are the most resilient people in the country. They face unknown challenges, whether it be weather, world markets or foreign markets that have an impact. Recognizing the challenges of mental health in agriculture is one of the aspects that we need to do more on. We need to be there to support farmers and farm families as they face those challenges that are unknown, unpredictable and affect not only their livelihoods but their families as well.

[Food Day in Canada Act, October 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford's optimism that, with enough runway, we will be able to get this bill through.

He talked about resiliency in the agriculture community and probably the defining word for farming and farm families across Canada is “resiliency” through difficult times. I want to pick on one specific aspect of resiliency, and that is the mental health aspect.

Farmers and farm families face challenges that are beyond the scope of so many other different industries, such as the unpredictability of the weather and of the markets. The challenge that farmers often face with mental health is not felt in other industries, so there is much more than we can do as parliamentarians to make that change.

[Food Day in Canada Act, October 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph is absolutely right. The ability to share a meal among friends, among colleagues and sometimes among people whom you may not entirely agree with is so important to finding common ground. That is one of the great legacies of Anita Stewart. The member made a comment about an event we were at together at the University of Guelph. The comments from Dr. Yates, president of Guelph university, talked about those examples of where Anita was able to bring happiness and bring cheer to a room by sharing food. Whether on a university campus or in homes across the country, the ability to share those opportunities among all Canadians is so important.

Therefore, I thank the member for Guelph and I do believe he will be supporting this bill. I appreciate his support on this important matter.

[Food Day in Canada Act, October 4th, 2022]

moved that Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to begin debate at second reading of Bill S-227, the food day in Canada act. I am especially pleased to begin debate on this bill on what in Ontario is agriculture week. Agriculture week in Ontario is an opportunity to celebrate the amazing farmers and farm families that quite literally grow the food that not only feeds our country but helps to feed the world. In fact, in Ontario, agriculture week was created by one of my constituents and the former local member of provincial parliament for what was then the riding of Perth, Mr. Bert Johnson, so I am especially pleased to begin debate on food day in Canada during agriculture week.

This Senate public bill was first introduced in the other place by the Hon. Rob Black, senator for Wellington County. This bill proposes to establish, each and every year, the Saturday before the first Monday in August as food day in Canada. This day would formally establish food day in Canada. I say “formally” because food day in Canada has been informally celebrated and recognized in Wellington County, in southern Ontario and in some parts across Canada for nearly 20 years. In fact, on this past food day in Canada, on July 30, landmarks across Canada were lit in red and white to celebrate food day in Canada. From the Confederation Building in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, to Vancouver's city hall, and from the Calgary Tower in Calgary, Alberta, to the CN Tower in Toronto, Ontario, these landmarks were lit in red and white to celebrate food in Canada, from the farmer's field to the fork.

I am especially pleased that food day in Canada is being celebrated and championed by all four federal representatives for Wellington County. In addition to being sponsored by me, the House of Commons' sponsor of the bill, and the Hon. Senator Rob Black, representative for Wellington County in the Senate, the bill is supported by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the member for Guelph. It is obviously not a partisan bill, but one we can all unite behind to celebrate food day in Canada.

I want to step back a bit and reflect on the origins of food day in Canada.

Some members will recall the summer of 2003. It was a difficult summer for many Canadians, especially those living in rural Ontario. There was a surge in the West Nile virus, the SARS virus had reached Ontario and there was a massive power blackout that summer. However, in the agriculture sector specifically, it was a summer known for the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, better known as BSE or by the colloquial term “mad cow disease”.

This crisis quite literally devastated the beef industry overnight. In moments, the cattle industry was in fear and panic, and Canada's trading partners slammed the door shut on Canadian exports of beef to the United States and to dozens of other countries around the globe. With these border closures, the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working farmers and farm families in the beef industry were decimated quite literally overnight.

A report from Statistics Canada at the time said this of the BSE crisis:

Prior to May 2003, Canada was the third largest exporter of beef in the world. In 2002, Canada's export market for beef amounted to about $4.1 billion.

On May 20, 2003, however, the nation's beef industry was rocked by a totally unexpected development: a single breeder cow in northern Alberta had tested positive for...BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease. Within hours, most nations had imposed a ban on Canadian beef products.

By June 2003, Canadian beef producers had seen their exports to the United States drop from $288 million a month to zero.

However, while our farmers were working through this crisis, a passionate defender of Canadian agriculture from Wellington County named Anita Stewart stood up and started a movement to grow and inspire trust that our farmers would pull through this difficult time. It was in those dark days, in the sunny summer of 2003, that Anita Stewart began the first Food Day in Canada.

As the current coordinator for Food Day Canada, Crystal Mackay, describes it:

Anita Stewart was a food activist and pioneer who had the vision for ‘shop local food’ before it was a trend. The BSE crisis in 2003 was a turning point for her when she saw restaurants and Canadians buying beef from other countries at a time when our own Canadian beef farmers and ranchers were suffering huge financial losses and stress. She turned that tragedy into a tremendous opportunity to have a conversation with our country about the value of supporting our own incredible food system.

Canadians are humble people. Food Day Canada breaks us out of that for a day to truly celebrate the incredible people in our food system and the world class food we have here grown close to home.

That first Food Day in 2003 was known as the world’s longest barbecue. From that one event that Anita Stewart created to bring people together to pull through those challenging days, it has grown into so much more. In fact, in recognition of Anita Stewart's commitment to the food system in Canada, she was awarded membership in the Order of Canada. The Governor General's citation for that achievement says:

Anita Stewart is an enthusiastic and dedicated promoter of Canadian cuisine. Called a culinary activist, she has spent the last 30 years exploring Canada, sometimes even by dog sled and on Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers, discovering and chronicling the stories of the essential foods of our nation and the talented people who serve them.... She is...a passionate volunteer and the founder of Cuisine Canada and Food Day Canada.

Sadly, nearly two years ago, Anita Stewart passed away at the age of 73. She had done so much in her lifetime, and her loss has been felt not only by those close to her, but by the entire food and agriculture community.

As Dr. Charlotte Yates, president of the University of Guelph, said at an event this summer to honour Food Day, “Food Day Canada is a grassroots movement that brings thousands of individuals and partners together.” She said, “in many ways we are here today in celebration of being able to carry on Anita’s legacy. Anita believed more than anything in the power of food to bring people together.”

In addition to being the first food laureate at the University of Guelph, the university's food lab is also named in Anita Stewart's honour. At that same event I just referenced at the University of Guelph in July, I had the pleasure of meeting one of Anita’s four sons, Jeff Stewart. He told me about his late mother's lifetime of dedicated work and her passion for Canadian food, and it lives both through her family and also through Food Day in Canada.

Last week, Jeff and his three brothers, Brad, Mark and Paul, sent me a message about their late mother and what Food Day means to them. They wrote:

Since the 1970's, our mother, Anita Stewart, has been uniting Canadians through food. 20 years ago, she created Food Day Canada...a national celebration of Canada’s unique, rich and diverse food culture.

Over the past 20 years, Food Day Canada has evolved into a national community, celebrating Canadian food and those who bring it to us. The goal of the associated Food Day Canada organization is to educate the public about Canada’s food system and culture, while elevating thinking about Canadian food sovereignty and food security. The organization and its members fully support Bill S-227, and will provide leadership, guidance and resources, to ensure that an Official Food Day in Canada lives up to its potential as a positive, spirited, diverse celebration for all Canadians.

By supporting this Bill, the honourable Members will take an historic step towards putting Canada on the map as a proud food leader, while also giving Canadians an opportunity to shop, cook, dine and celebrate Canada’s rich food culture.

We sincerely believe that an official Food Day in Canada will offer significant cultural benefits to Canadians and their families, with economic benefits for communities and businesses, as we echo our dear mother’s favourite credo together: “Canada IS food and the world is richer for it.”

Those were comments from Anita Stewart's four children.

Since that first Food Day in 2003, it has indeed grown into a wonderful celebration of the food our farmers grow and the food that all Canadians enjoy every single day, whether at their kitchen tables or at restaurant tables across the country. It is celebrated on the Saturday before the first Monday in August, making it land in many provinces, including my own, on the Saturday of the August long weekend.

I know people might ask why this should be an official day. It is because, out of the darkness of the 2003 BSE crisis, something wonderful emerged and we as Canadians have the opportunity now to recognize that positive outcome of a negative situation. Over these past two decades, Food Day Canada has grown to encompass not only our farmers but everyone along all the parts of our national food supply chain: those who work hard getting the seeds into the fields, those who harvest the crops, those who process the food and those who prepare and serve the wonderful and delicious meals on Canadian plates.

All of us have great things that we can celebrate in our ridings related to Canadian agriculture and Canadian food. Whether it is the fishermen in West Nova or the dairy farmer in Abbotsford or the farmer in Sarnia—Lambton, we all have things to celebrate.

Because I am the sponsor of this bill, I can brag a bit about the great riding of Perth—Wellington, where we have more dairy farmers and chicken farmers than any other electoral district in this country, and where chicken alone is produced at a rate of 103 million kilograms every year. In Perth—Wellington, we have 395 pig farms, 538 beef farms and 242,954 dairy or beef cattle. Collectively across this country, agriculture and agri-food accounts for $134.9 billion in GDP activity each and every year.

That is just talking about one aspect of all there is to celebrate. Given the long history that agriculture has had in the growth of our great nation and the meaning of food to our distinct cultural and multicultural heritage, surely Food Day in Canada is worthy of recognition nationwide on the last Saturday before the first Monday in August each year.

Canadians are hard-working and we are supportive of one another. That is the legacy of Anita Stewart and a point of pride in our agriculture and agri-food communities. Let us work together to pass Bill S-227 and give Food Day Canada the official recognition it deserves.

[Privilege, September 28th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, for which I gave notice earlier this same day, regarding the conduct of the member for St. Catharines, who attempted to intimidate Scott Benzie, a witness appearing before a committee of the Senate studying Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, as reported yesterday by the Globe and Mail.

While I appreciate that this attempt to intimidate relates to proceedings of a Senate committee currently studying Bill C-11, the culprit in this case is a member of the House, and that same witness appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its deliberations on Bill C-11, an appearance where Mr. Benzie, no doubt, first established himself as an undesirable witness for the government on the merits of Bill C-11.

Normally, it is members who bring to the attention of a committee of the House the matter of outside actors intimidating witnesses before committee, but this case is unique in that it is a member of the House of Commons doing the intimidating in another jurisdiction, the Senate. In addition, it relates to a bill, for which I have responsibility for as the shadow minister of Canadian heritage, that originated in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. While this type of offence may not fall within one of the specifically defined categories of privilege, the category of contempt allows the House to deal with the unorthodox nature of this case.

On pages 81 to 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, they state:

Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “...while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”.

Another perspective of parliamentary privilege is the notion that the behaviour of members falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of this House. At pages 181 to 183 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it clearly states that the House of Commons' jurisdiction over its members is absolute and exclusive, whereby the House has the power to enforce discipline on members of the House of Commons. Page 76 of Bosc and Gagnon refers to one of the rights of the House recognized by the Supreme Court, which is disciplinary authority over its members.

The next question is why the House would exercise its disciplinary authority over a member in this case. Simply put, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Attempts by anyone to intimidate a witness before a committee is considered a contempt. It is particularly offensive that it is a member of the House who is attempting to interfere with the work of a committee in a manner that would be considered a contempt, had it been attempted by a member of the public.

The Globe and Mail story I referred to earlier reports:

A Liberal MP has asked the lobbying commissioner to investigate an outspoken critic of the federal government's online-streaming bill for failing to immediately disclose funding from YouTube and TikTok.

The Heritage Minister's Parliamentary secretary...asked Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger to launch an investigation into Digital First Canada, an organization that advocates for YouTubers and people posting videos on platforms.

The article continues:

[Executive director] Mr. Benzie questioned the motivation of the minister's parliamentary secretary in referring him to the lobbying commissioner. He said the MP had not asked for a probe into organizations receiving outside funding, both public and private that had given evidence in favour of Bill C-11....

Mr. Benzie said that he was speaking out about the bill because no other group was representing the views of individuals posting videos on YouTube — including “creators making $16 a month” — and he was concerned about the impact of the legislation on their livelihoods.

A similar situation occurred on December 4, 1992. The then member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell rose in the House to bring to the attention of the Speaker the intimidation of a witness appearing before a committee of the House for remarks she made during testimony at that committee. The CBC threatened a lawsuit against the witness because of evidence she presented at the committee. The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facia question of privilege. Also noteworthy in that case is that the Speaker came to this conclusion without a report from a committee. In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is threatening an investigation against a witness because of evidence he presented to a committee.

Page 267 of the 24th edition of Erskine May states, “Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.” Similar statements are made at page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, which explains that witnesses are protected from threats or intimidation.

Paragraph 15.23 of Erskine May, 25th edition, states, “Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which they may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a contempt.”

On April 13, 2000, the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders presented its fifth report dealing with allegations about reprisals against a witness. The report stated, in part, as follows:

The Senate, and all senators, view with great seriousness any allegations of possible intimidation or harassment of a witness or potential witness before a Senate committee. In order for the Senate to discharge its functions and duties properly, it must be able to call and hear from witnesses without their being threatened or fearing any repercussions. Any interference with a person who has given evidence before a Senate committee, or who is planning to, is an interference with the Senate itself, and cannot be tolerated.

Our privileges are necessary to allow us to perform our duties and to defend against threats against the authority of this Parliament. The fact that this threat came from within this place is particularly distressing.

Mr. Speaker, even if you have some doubts about this case involving a Senate committee and the conduct of a member of the House of Commons, I urge you to give this case the benefit of the doubt.

I refer the House to Maingot, second edition, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, which I will quote for everyone's benefit. It states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

In a ruling on October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of the Debates, the Speaker said:

In considering this matter, I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...and considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.

Further, on March 27, 1969, page 7182, the Debates states the following:

[The member] has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a member of parliament. On the other hand, hon. members know that the house has always exercised great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve that doubt in favour of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, there are ample precedents to allow you to put this matter to the House and to have it decide on the best course of action and what it might be. If you do give this matter the benefit of the doubt and find a prima facie question of privilege, I am of course prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Heidi Schlumpf, September 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, after she was diagnosed with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, local teacher Heidi Schlumpf used her 34th birthday on September 8, 2021, to spread acts of kindness with #putakinddeedinyourfeed. Sadly, Heidi passed away on August 10 of this year, but her legacy of kindness continued on what would have been her 35th birthday.

Across the area and beyond, friends, students, loved ones and complete strangers used the occasion to spread acts of kindness. Tim Hortons gift cards were left on car windshields, homemade cookies were given to seniors, pancake breakfasts were held at local schools, and diners were surprised with free lunches. More than anything, these acts of kindness leave a wonderful legacy for her husband and their four children: Priska, Daisy, Alice and Konrad.

We would all live in a better world with more acts of kindness in our lives.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2022]

With regard to the reception "An Evening at Canada's House" attended by the Prime Minister at the Official Residence of the Consul General of Canada in Los Angeles held on or around the evening of June 10, 2022: (a) how many individuals were invited to the reception; (b) who was invited; (c) how was the invite list determined; (d) what costs were incurred by the government related to the event, broken down by item and type of expense; (e) what are the details of all contracts worth more than $1,000 related to the event, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided; and (f) why was the event not listed on the Prime Minister's official itinerary for that day?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2022]

With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) have the shows (i) Keep Your Head Up, Kid: The Don Cherry Story, (ii) Wrath of Grapes: The Don Cherry Story II, (iii) Trudeau, (iv) Trudeau II: Maverick in the Making, (v) Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, been removed from CBC Gem and other online CBC platforms; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of the removal of each show, including, for each, (i) why it was removed, (ii) what steps the CBC has taken to preserve the content, (iii) the dates on which it was removed, (iv) who made the decision to remove the content, (v) the date on which the Minister of Canadian Heritage became aware of the shows' removal, (vi) the actions taken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, if any, to ensure that these and other heritage shows were preserved?