John Nater

[Business of the House, March 12th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the government house leader what business he intends to bring forward to this House for the remainder of this workweek and the Monday when we return.

[Cystic Fibrosis, March 9th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, no one should have to imagine what it would feel like to try to breathe while under water, but for Canadians living with cystic fibrosis, this is a daily reality. However, there is hope. Trikafta has been approved in the United States and is showing remarkable results for Americans living with cystic fibrosis, but it is not approved in Canada. It is not approved in Canada because of changes that the Liberal government made to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Last week, I met with families who are living with cystic fibrosis. The words of one young woman really struck home. She said very simply, “I want to live. I want to see my son grow up.”

The Minister of Health needs to do the right thing. She needs to put down her talking points, set aside her partisanship and work with the manufacturer to get Trikafta approved in Canada. Canadians are counting on us. Let us not be the Parliament that fails to act.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I 100% agree with what I said then and I agree with what I have said now. Changes and amendments to the Standing Orders of this House should be done with the consensus of all members of this House.

This is not a change to the Standing Orders; it is the granting of three additional opposition days, during the supply period, to the members of the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. It is not a change to the Standing Orders of this House.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is absolutely right. This is a special order of this House for three additional opposition days during the supply period ending March 31, which has the option to be extended to April 2. This is a run-of-the-mill opposition day motion that works within the rules of this House, but he is right, we should be debating NAFTA.

Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers than any other electoral district in the country. We have more chicken farmers in Wellington County than any other county in the province. They are expressing their concerns to me about some of the challenges they see with NAFTA, and we should be debating that now in this House.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the rights and privileges of this House are not a gift given to the opposition by the Liberal government; the rights and privileges of this House are enshrined in the Constitution. They are enshrined in the authorities of this House. They are enshrined as a right and privilege of all parliamentarians to raise the issues that matter to them.

I do not need to remind the member for Central Nova that it was his House leader at the time who tried to unilaterally change the Standing Orders through a blatant attempt to reduce accountability through the discussion document she tried to table. It was unacceptable.

I would remind the Liberal government, which will soon be the opposition again, that this is not a change to the Standing Orders; this is an order of this House, an order of this Parliament, for the supply period ending March 31.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, “Parliament is more than procedure – it is the custodian of the nation’s freedom.” Those words were spoken by the great defender of parliamentary democracy, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.

Today, we find ourselves called upon to once again stand in support of this great institution, to once again stand for the right of opposition parliamentarians to hold the government to account.

Many Canadians may not be closely following the business of supply. They may not closely follow the allotted days, or the opposition days, that are often called in Parliament. However, these days, in which the agenda of the House falls to the opposition parties, are absolutely essential to our great parliamentary democracy. We as the opposition, both the official opposition and the other opposition parties, have the right to bring forward matters that we feel are important to our constituents and to all Canadians.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states “The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.”

We have brought forward this opposition day motion on this day for very important reasons. The Liberal government decided to punish the official opposition by giving us a short parliamentary day, a short day when only two full speaking slots would be allocated to the opposition parties.

The Liberal government seems to have forgotten that it is among the weakest governing mandate in Canadian history. The Liberals forget that they actually lost the popular vote in the last election and Canadians saw fit to return them with a minority of seats in this place.

Bosc and Gagnon states the following, on page 855:

The setting aside of a specified number of sitting days on which the opposition chooses the subject of debate derives from the tradition which holds that Parliament does not grant supply until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused.

In other words, before we as the opposition can consent to the continued funding of the government, we must, and we will, have the opportunity to raise our concerns in this place. We will not be silenced. We will not accept that the government, and only the government, has a legitimate voice in this place.

I would remind members of the Liberal Party that they are first and foremost members of the legislative branch of government. Those who do not sit in cabinet are not members of the executive branch. They are parliamentarians and parliamentarians first and foremost. They too should be concerned that the members of the executive branch of government are the ones who are trying to control the debate of this very place.

I ought not to need to remind the government of its legislative record and its mismanagement of House time in the previous Parliament. At the time of dissolution, it had left at least 17 government bills lying on the Order Paper. This is in spite of the fact that it used time allocation on dozens of occasions. On top of that, there were 13 motions for closure and 40 motions to proceed to orders of the day, thereby bypassing the opportunity for opposition MPs to move concurrence motions or to table petitions on behalf of the constituents in each of our 338 ridings across the country.

Today's debate is about returning the House to the people, to give the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party each one additional opposition day during the supply period, to give each of these parties the opportunity to raise the issues before granting supply to the Liberal government.

I do not need to remind the House either about the disregard we have seen in the past by the Liberal Party to this institution.

In the previous Parliament, on one of its very first bills, Bill C-14, the medical assistance in dying act, the Liberal government was found to have contravened the rights and privileges of the House by leaking the contents to the media before it was tabled for all parliamentarians to see. Old habits die hard, because it appears it did that once again this time with Bill C-7, the amendments to medical assistance in dying.

The Conservatives do not need to remind the Liberals either about the impacts they bring upon themselves when they attempt to use draconian measures to shut down debate in the House. We all remember Motion No. 6, when they tried to unilaterally take control of every mechanism for debate in the House. We do not need to remind the Liberals of the standing order standoff, when they tried to diminish the opportunity for the opposition to hold the government to account by unilaterally changing the rules of the House. It fell to the Conservatives, as the official opposition, and the third party, the New Democrats, to ensure we were that line of defence, that we were that thin line of the wedge to prevent the Liberal government from doing that.

In fact, in the previous Parliament, during a debate in this very House on a question of privilege, one of the most significant matters with which the House can be seized, a Liberal member of Parliament, the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, stood in the House, used a procedural measure to move to orders of the day and killed that debate. However, our Parliament is stronger than any one Liberal member of Parliament. At that time, the Speaker saw fit to return that question of privilege to the House so members of Parliament could have their voices heard.

We see this time and again with the Liberal government. At every opportunity it has to do the right thing, it goes the opposite direction.

That brings me to the events we have seen just in the last couple of weeks on the new NAFTA. It is not a great deal and it is not the worst deal; it is somewhere in between. We are the party of free trade and we support the implementation of the new NAFTA despite its imperfections. However, to hear the Deputy Prime Minister state publicly and in this place that the Conservative Party was somehow trying to delay the new NAFTA is an insult to the opposition and to the House of Commons.

Just yesterday, my colleague, the opposition House leader, gave the Liberals the opportunity to right their wrong by bringing forward NAFTA today. We could be debating NAFTA today and I could be raising the concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington, the farmers, the manufacturers, individuals who have concerns with the bill. However, the Liberals did not budge. In fact, speaking for the government, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said no, that the government would not be willing to bring NAFTA forward. That is unacceptable.

We stand here today debating this opposition motion, a motion that gives the rights and responsibilities of the House back to all its members. I encourage all members to stand for their parliamentary privilege, to stand for democracy and vote in favour of this motion.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, farmers are facing their challenges now and the deadline is fast approaching for the advance payments repayments.

Farmers are facing challenges. A wet harvest meant the money for crops stayed in the ground. Those who did get their crops off are now facing delays because of a CN Rail strike and illegal blockades. When we asked the Prime Minister this question yesterday, it appeared as though he did not even know what this program was.

Therefore, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will she extend the deadline for the advance payments program and will she waive the interest charges, yes or no?

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2020]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce my private member's bill today, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sexual exploitation.

I would like to thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for seconding this bill.

This bill was introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-424. It is designed to better protect young people and persons living with disabilities from sexual exploitation. This is a direct result of the advocacy, comments and concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington. They were shocked in January 2018 to learn that a person who was employed to work with young people and persons living with disabilities was convicted of a serious sexual crime against a person living with a disability. As a sentence, he received a monetary fine.

This bill would ensure appropriate sentencing for anyone who commits a serious sexual crime against a young person or a person living with disabilities. It provides for guidance in sentencing if the crime is committed against a young person or a person living with disabilities.

I look forward to continuing debate on this matter, and I am seeking the support of all hon. members in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time, the opposition would like to reserve its right to return to the House, if needed, to address this question of privilege.

[Shirley Judge, February 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to pay tribute to Shirley Judge, who passed away earlier this week at the age of 75.

Together with her husband Vince, Shirley was a pillar of the Listowel and North Perth community. Through her faith, music and kind encouragement, she was a loving influence on everyone she met. She was a kindergarten teacher, taught Sunday school and was a church organist for more than three decades. She sang with “The Beaton Sisters”, was an honorary member of the Baptist women's association of Ontario and Quebec and was a quiet yet determined force on so many campaigns.

To her husband Vince, her children Kelly, John and Greg, and her seven grandchildren, I offer my deepest sympathies. Through sorrow and grief, we can take comfort in the memory of a life filled with love.