John Nater

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

With regard to the sum of $68,820,713 issued in remissions from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to broadcasters that was listed on page 13 of the President of the Treasury Board's Fees Report for the 2020-21 fiscal year: what is the breakdown of this sum for each broadcaster, media outlet, or company?

[Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, September 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, for generations of Canadians, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was a constant in a world filled with change. Even when she was 96 years of age, many of us felt like she would always be there. After all, she had been a part of so much of our history. She was our Queen, so it feels almost unreal to declare “God save the King”.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II visited Canada more often than any other country on earth. I remember with great clarity Her Majesty's visit to Stratford in 1997 to view a scene from The Taming of the Shrew at the Stratford Festival. I remember watching her helicopter land in the aptly named Lower Queen's Park. I then ran to Upper Queen's Park and stood on a lawn chair six or seven rows back to catch a glimpse of Her Majesty during her walkabout. Many in our community also remember her previous visit to Stratford, in 1959, with Prince Philip for a performance of Shakespeare's As You Like It.

When our country celebrated great milestones, she was here. She was her for the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, Expo 67, the Montreal Olympics, the patriation of the Constitution, the centennials of the entry into Confederation of British Columbia and, 34 years later, for that of Alberta and Saskatchewan. In 1964, she was here for the 100th anniversary of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences.

In an address at the opening of the Confederation Centre, Her Majesty The Queen reflected on her beloved Canada. She said:

We know the splendor of her achievements in peace and in the dark years of war, the esteem in which she is held in the great councils of the world, the contributions to the enrichment of the Commonwealth, the generosity and sense of responsibility toward the newly developing countries, and willingness to assume the gravest of international responsibilities—all these and much else have grown out of this great act of political statesmanship and have made Canada what she is today.

We, as members of the House of Commons, represent one of two houses of Parliament, but we also represent one of three parts of Parliament: the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown. Indeed, the first time these three parts of Parliament formally convened was in 1957 for the opening of the 23rd Parliament. In the Speech from the Throne, the first to be delivered by the monarch, the Queen stated:

I greet you as your Queen. Together we constitute the Parliament of Canada. For the first time the representatives of the people of Canada and their Sovereign are here assembled on the occasion of the opening of Parliament. This is for all of us a moment to remember.

Parliamentary government has been fashioned by the wisdom of many centuries. Its justice, authority and dignity are cherished by men of good will.

I share that quotation from 1957 because it reflects the sincerity with which Her Majesty conducted her constitutional obligations.

In Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution, he ably divides the institutions of government into two parts: the dignified and the efficient. The dignified parts are “those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population” and the efficient parts are “those by which it, in fact, works and rules.” The dignified parts are the Crown. The efficient parts are the government.

Now I am sure there have been times over the decades that Her Majesty may have wondered how efficient some of her ministers may have been, but as the ever-dignified sovereign, she respected her constitutional role.

While she was always dignified, it did not stop her from surprising us, as she did with her famous entry to the London Olympics with 007, and with her ever-so-poignant tea with Paddington Bear during the Platinum Jubilee celebrations earlier this year.

Seventy-five years ago, on her 21st birthday, Princess Elizabeth pledged that her whole life would be devoted to service. To her final days, she fulfilled that pledge of service. To paraphrase Shakespeare, we shall not look upon her like again.

[Privilege, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the government House leader, I would encourage him to first review the points that were raised by the member for Calgary Centre and then consult the authorities. He would learn that, in fact, it is not necessarily an internal challenge that would create a question of privilege.

As has been clearly stated by Mr. Speaker Milliken, Mr. Speaker Regan and the current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, external factors can, in fact, have an impact on the privileges and the dignity of this House. For the government House leader to say that just because it was an external problem outside of the direct control of this place is incredibly misleading. I would encourage him to consult the authorities, which are available at the table in those wonderful green books, and review what constitutes a question of privilege in this place.

[Criminal Code, June 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member speaking, but we are hearing reports from certain members that the Zoom application may not be working correctly. I am seeking guidance from the Table and from the Chair as to whether there is a problem with the network.

There are indications that people are not able to log on to the system.

[An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—Lacolle, June 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to serve the good people of Perth—Wellington. My riding name makes sense. It is Perth County and Wellington County. It is very straightforward, and I am very proud to represent the good folks of Perth—Wellington and to rise to debate Bill S-207.

Being the member of Parliament for the great riding of Perth—Wellington, which includes the city of Stratford and the great Stratford Festival, of course I am inclined to quote Shakespeare, who said this most eloquently in Romeo and Juliet:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet

To make a play on words, what is in a riding name? That which we call Châteauguay—Lacolle by any other name would something, something. I am not very good at iambic pentameter, but members get the point. There is a consideration here, as riding names should reflect the communities they represent. In this case, it has been noted that Lacolle is a neighbouring municipality that is not actually in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I have to hand it to the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle for her persistence on this matter. If memory serves me correctly, I believe this Parliament marks the third time she has attempted to introduce this bill. In the 42nd Parliament, it was Bill C-377, and I was on the procedure and House affairs committee when we reviewed that bill. In the 43rd Parliament, first and second session, it was Bill S-213. Now, in the 44th Parliament, it is Bill S-207.

I do not want to make light of this change, because I recognize that it does reflect the riding and the communities in it, but I would be negligent in not pointing out that we are already getting into redistribution for the next redistribution. The fact is that we are now nearly seven years into debating this riding name, and we would have to go through the process of amending it, with the costs associated with that not only in the House of Commons and federal institutions, but also at Elections Canada, for potentially as little as 18 months. It seems these resources could be addressed elsewhere.

I would draw the attention of the House to the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle's original plan for a private member's bill. This is one that I would have supported wholeheartedly.

Immediately after the 2015 election, there was obviously a lottery. I placed high in the 200s. I did not have the opportunity to debate my bill, but the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle did. According to The Hill Times, at the time, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle was “planning on putting forward a motion, M-125, Financial Literacy, that seeks to have the House Finance Committee study and report back on the implementation of the National Strategy for Financial Literacy to see if its meeting its current goals, evolving, and has the right measures in place to evaluate its progress.”

That is a motion I could get behind. Just imagine if six and a half years ago, the government had financial literacy in place and had been able to benefit, for the last six years, from a national financial literacy plan. Imagine how much further ahead we as Canadians would have been if the Liberals had taken up a commitment to being financially literate with the nation's finances. However, here we are six and a half years later, and sadly Motion No. 125 never saw the light of day and the member went ahead with Bill C-377 instead.

I am not going to imply that the member was told to do otherwise and go with a different PMB. We all know that often the House leader and the whips on the government side will encourage members, gently or otherwise, to go in a different direction. However, it is interesting that the member, immediately prior to the replenishment, the night before, opted not to go ahead with an important motion on financial literacy in Canada and went with changing the name of her riding from Châteauguay—Lacolle to Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville.

I note that the name does roll off the tongue, especially for an Anglo who tries his best in our second national language. It nonetheless seems to be a PMB that lacks a purpose in the sense that we are not likely to have an election campaign before the new ridings come into place. We will not have that opportunity.

I will leave my comments there.

[An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—Lacolle, June 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that, typically in this type of debate, members are provided broad latitude. On the particular matter, as the member for Winnipeg North often points out, I am sure that the arc of the member's speech will eventually come back to why the bill ought to have been replaced with something more meaningful, as the member for Edmonton West is trying to point out.

[Sport, June 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at heritage committee it was revealed that in June 2018, a senior official at Heritage Canada was made aware of the allegations of sexual assault at Hockey Canada, yet for four years the government continued to give Hockey Canada millions of taxpayer dollars while no action was taken to hold anyone accountable or address the dangerous culture that enabled harassment and assault.

For four years, Hockey Canada continued to receive millions. Why?

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent to adopt it on division.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about levelling the playing field. Would he agree that one way to level the playing field would be to eliminate class 2 licence fees?

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his sports analogies. I am not sure how they are relevant to Bill C-11, since sports are actually not entirely captured in Bill C-11, since Canadian broadcasters use sporting commentary to fulfill their CanCon requirements, but since he is on sports, I wonder if he would join me in condemning Hockey Canada for failing to disclose, four years ago, a sexual assault that occurred in London, Ontario.

Will he join me in condemning Hockey Canada for covering that up for the last four years?