John Nater

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for the question.

Like many Canadians, I enjoy Netflix. To me, it is a good opportunity to have Canadian content on a different platform.

To the specific question about applying the HST to Netflix, I want to go one step further. Let us talk about how we can encourage the innovative economy. How can we as Canadian parliamentarians work to ensure the innovations of tomorrow are enhanced and encouraged, and not taxed out of existence? How do we as Canadians support entrepreneurs who are coming up with the next big thing, like the next Netflix or the next major innovation? That is what we should be doing as Canadians.

I would also note that it was the Conservative government that lowered the HST and the GST by two percentage points. I am proud of that record.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we will be cutting the perks that the Prime Minister receives at taxpayer expense. We will be cutting the half a billion dollars that is wasted on building infrastructure outside of Canada. People in my riding are concerned about the roads and bridges in our communities. They are shocked when they hear the Liberals are spending half a billion dollars building infrastructure through the Asian infrastructure bank.

The member for Gatineau brought up our record from when we were in office. However, let us be very clear: That was during the global recession. Thanks to the leadership of the Hon. Jim Flaherty, we weathered that storm better than any other G7 country. At the end of our term, we returned to a balanced budget a year ahead of schedule. That is the type of leadership we want to see in a minister of finance, the leadership that Jim Flaherty showed for all Canadians during his time as our minister.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise in this House today to share some comments on today's supply day motion. Supply day motions are an opportunity for us, as the opposition, to hold the government to account. There sure is a lot to hold the government to account on. Just look at the litany of tax increases it has undertaken in the three short years it has been in office, as clearly articulated by the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Carleton.

Canadians in my riding of Perth—Wellington, and indeed Canadians across the country, are noticing this. They are noticing this because time and time again they see the government spending more money than it takes in. They see a government that promised, in the election campaign, teeny tiny deficits of $10 billion. It promised $10 billion for three short years, and by 2019, this very year, it would be back in the black. It promised Canadians, hand over heart, three short years of deficits, and then we would be back to balanced budgets. Of course, that did not happen.

This opposition day motion lays out very clearly the views of this opposition when it comes to the government's tax increases. We want a clear commitment, in writing, that the Liberals will cease their tax increases on Canadians. Canadians in my riding of Perth—Wellington and Canadians across the country are finding the cost of living to be going up. At the end of each month, they notice that there is not a lot left. They might be making ends meet. They might be getting by, but that is about it. They are struggling.

At the end of each month, Canadians sit down at kitchen tables across this country and look at their expenses and what they have brought in. They know, as Conservatives know, that they have to make those numbers balance. They have to make tough decisions. They have to decide whether they can put off that needed house repair for maybe that much longer. They have to decide whether they will be able to sock away a bit of money for a rainy day fund. They have to make difficult decisions for their kids and their futures. Do they have enough money that month to put a bit away for an RESP to plan for their kids' future education? Do they have a bit of money so maybe they can enrol the kids in a sporting activity, like soccer or swimming lessons, or will they have to forego that because money is tight? Parents have to make those tough decisions. Canadians have to make those tough decisions.

Small businesses have to make tough decisions. A small business owner has to decide whether there is enough left over at the end of the month to reinvest in the business or to pay himself or herself a salary that month. I have talked to small business owners in my riding, as my colleagues have talked to small business owners across the country, and they are finding it tough. They are finding it tough because of the challenges the Liberal government has put before them.

It is not just in my riding. It is in ridings across this country. In a neighbouring riding, Kitchener South—Hespeler, I have had some great conversations with the Conservative candidate there, Mr. Alan Keeso. Alan Keeso is going to be a great MP when he arrives in this House in a few short months. Alan has two master's degrees from Oxford, where he also played on the Oxford hockey team. He was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Most importantly, he listens to his community. He listens to his neighbours. He listens to the people on the doorstep talk about their concerns about what is happening in their community.

What he is hearing in Kitchener South—Hespeler reflects what a lot of us are hearing across the country, which is that families are finding it tough. The question of affordability is constantly there. They are concerned about a carbon tax. They are concerned that the carbon tax is going to end up being a tax on everything, that it is going to increase the cost of everyday items families rely on, such as groceries and getting to and from work. Small businesses are concerned about the other changes as well, such as increased payroll taxes, a tax on both the individual and the employer.

Alan says that families are just shaking their heads about the Liberals' spending and how they can blow so much money today, which will cause increases in taxes down the road to pay for the Liberals' mismanagement.

Alan related a story to me about a small business owner he was talking to. This particular small business owner had to let employees go because he said the incentive was gone from growing his business. That incentive is gone because of the Liberals. That is wrong. Alan told me this particular business owner, a constituent in Kitchener South—Hespeler, raised his concerns when the Liberals' tax changes were proposed two summers ago with the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler. Nothing happened. He found no support from his local MP when he raised his concerns about the disastrous proposals the Liberal Minister of Finance presented for small businesses. It is absolutely shameful.

There is hope. There is hope because the Conservatives are listening. Conservatives in places like Kitchener South—Hespeler and across the country are listening to their constituents. They are listening to the concerns of Canadians. Those concerns are real.

I talked to seniors. Seniors are concerned. A lot of seniors have spent their lives preparing for their retirements, putting money away, ensuring that when the time came for them to retire they could live comfortably. They are not living extravagantly. They are not blowing their money. They are simply living and enjoying what, quite rightfully, they are entitled to. However, now that they are on a fixed income, they are concerned about what the current Liberals are going to do to their lives. They are concerned about the cost of heating their homes. They are concerned about the cost of their groceries. They are concerned about the cost of medication as well, which is not going to be helped by the concessions of the Liberals in the recent NAFTA negotiations.

The Liberals are offering them false and I would dare say dishonest hope when they flout their changes to the CPP. In fact, the changes proposed to the payroll tax increases to CPP will not come into play in full degree until 2065, offering a false hope to today's seniors.

We all know that today's budget deficits are tomorrow's tax increases. According to the Department of Finance's own numbers, the budget will not be balanced until 2040.

I have three young kids, Ainsley, Bennett and Caroline. Ainsley, my four-year old, will be 26 years old by the time the budget is finally balanced. My nine-month old, Caroline, will be 22 years old. She will be graduating from university by the time the budget is finally balanced. Their generation will be paying the tax increases caused by the nearly $1 trillion in debt that will exist by the year 2040. Year after year, that debt and debt financing are not going toward investments with respect to the concerns of Canadians. It will not help to build infrastructure in rural communities, in places like Mapleton, St. Marys, Perth South, Listowel, Mitchell, Stratford or Milverton. They are not building infrastructure. Money is being wasted on increased deficit and debt financing charges because the current Liberals have not lived within their means.

Canadians were sold a bill of goods in 2015. They were promised three short years and a return to a balanced budget by 2019. That has not happened.

The Conservatives will always stand up for Canadian taxpayers. Come October 2019, we will once again tell Canadians that we will be standing on the side of Canadian families, taxpayers and small business owners.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell did not mention his experience in the office of former Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty, but I digress.

Listening to the comments from the member for Carleton, it is exceptional to hear the number of Liberal tax increases over the past three years raising taxes on middle-class families. I am almost led to believe that Canadians are stuck paying for the mistakes of this Liberal Prime Minister. I am going to give the member for Carleton the opportunity to expand on the real concern that average Canadians, especially young Canadians, are now paying for the mistakes of the current Liberal government.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to government and Canadian Armed Forces policies for the Vimy Officers’ Mess in Kingston, Ontario: (a) on what date was the booking accepted by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces for the December 19, 2018, Liberal Party fundraising event with the Prime Minister, which was subsequently cancelled; (b) what is the title of the individual who initially accepted the booking; (c) did the Privy Council Office advise the Office of the Prime Minister that attending a partisan event on Canadian Armed Forces property violated government policy and, if so, when was such advice given; and (d) why did the Prime Minister initially agree to attend an event which was in violation of government policy?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the $6 million budget for the Leader’s Debates Commission: what is the breakdown of how the $6 million is projected to be spent by standard object and line item?

[Petitions, January 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition today in support of Bill S-240. The bill would make it illegal to go abroad to obtain organs without the consent of the person donating those organs and would also render someone inadmissible to Canada who participates in that illegal trade of organs.

[Criminal Code, January 28th, 2019]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak at first reading of my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding sexual exploitation. I thank the member for Oxford for seconding this motion.

I am also pleased to be the first member to move a private member's bill in this new West Block House of Commons. This bill addresses the very real concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington, particularly those in Stratford. Our community was angered when we learned last year that an individual who was employed to work with children and people living with disabilities was found to have sexually exploited a person with a disability in our community. This individual pleaded guilty to obtaining sexual services for consideration but was sentenced to a mere monetary fine and probation. This lenient sentence sparked outrage in my community.

The bill would prevent such situations from occurring again by adding a provision to the Criminal Code to make it an aggravating circumstance in sentencing when the victim of the crime is a person with a mental or physical disability. Further, it would ensure that the sentencing guidelines for those who sexually exploit children or people living with disabilities are consistent and appropriate for these terrible crimes.

In short, the bill would provide stricter sentences for those who take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society: young people and persons living with a disability.

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

[Elections Modernization Act, December 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think concerns us in the official opposition is the impact of foreign influence on our elections. The Prime Minister said there was not much foreign influence or tampering in the last election. He did not go on to indicate exactly what he meant by that. We are still waiting to hear an answer on that.

At committee, among the many thoughtful and reasoned amendments put forward by the opposition parties was an amendment requiring a third party to have a segregated bank account. It was recommended by Dr. Lori Turnbull, a former adviser to the democratic institutions portfolio within PCO. She suggested having a segregated bank account to ensure that every dime going into it would be from domestic sources, with zero possibility of foreign influence finding its way into those bank accounts. That suggestion was rejected by the Liberal majority.

What does the member for Calgary Midnapore think about the rejection by the Liberal Party of that thoughtful, reasonable amendment by an eminent scholar in this field, Dr. Lori Turnbull?

[Privilege, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not providing sufficient information. Should a future question of privilege arise, I will be sure to do that.

However, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a declaration I received in lieu of response to Order Paper Question No. 2001, regarding the government's refusal to cover the costs of legal assistance to Admiral Mark Norman.

The document I received from the government reads in part:

With respect to legal assistance provide to specific individuals, a response could disclose personal and solicitor-client privileged information. Therefore the Government must respectfully decline to respond.

We are accustomed to the government responding to written questions with non-answers, and we are also aware that Speakers' rulings, documented in Bosc and Gagnon state that “it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate”. However, what I have not experienced in my relatively short time in the House is a situation where the government makes no attempt whatsoever to answer a question or offer reasons why it cannot answer a question, but instead boldly refuses to even respond to a question. That is a different matter altogether and, I believe, is unprecedented.

While I appreciate that this may appear to be a technical point, the government has for years been getting away with providing inaccurate, misleading and incomplete answers by exploiting the technicality I mentioned earlier from Bosc and Gagnon. I think you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the last thing the House needs to do is codify another technical loophole to allow the government to deny information to members.

Mr. Speaker, you may be tempted to consider the statement a response, since it was tabled like a response, but to do so would make mockery of the proceeding, since a response stating the government declines to respond is a communication effort left better to a Monty Python skit than to a proceeding in Parliament, and not unlike the time Graham Chapman attempted to explain rumours of cannibalism in the British Navy when he said “Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit”, which could also have doubled as an answer to an Order Paper question.

Standing Order 39(5)(b) has a provision to deal with the government when it fails to respond to a question within the 45-day period required under subsection (a), but no such procedure exists in the Standing Orders to deal with a government refusing to respond outright. I would argue that the only means to deal with this matter is through a question of privilege.

On December 16, 1980, at page 5,797 of Hansard, Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled that:

While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member....

The second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 234, offers a condition that is relevant and has been clearly met to allow you, Mr. Speaker, to rule favourably on my question of privilege. It says that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facia question of privilege:

...an admission by someone in authority, such as a Minister of the Crown or an officer of a department, an instrument of government policy, or a government agency, either that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled...and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in Parliament, is necessary.

As you know Mr. Speaker, deliberately withholding information from the House is in the same category as deliberately providing it with misleading information. They are both deliberate acts that obstruct and impede members of Parliament in the performance of their duties. In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence actually signed the defying declaration that his government declines to respond, and he did so through a proceeding in Parliament.

Given this deliberate and admitted defiance of the authority of the House of Commons by the parliamentary secretary, I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to move the appropriate motion and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am prepared to move such a motion should you find favour with these arguments.