John Nater

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would be curious to know from the member for Winnipeg North if he would have placed himself in a different position back in 2014, when he and his party, together with the NDP, delayed the passage of the Victims Bill of Rights by filibustering it on April 9, on May 27, on June 3, on June 6, on June 13 and again on June 20, at second reading alone. Does the member feel no shame for delaying the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in 2014 when it was put before the House by the former Conservative government?

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Barrie—Innisfil is absolutely right. It is a system of misplaced priorities for the Liberals. They will throw up additional roadblocks and rules for law-abiding Canadians but then reduce sentences and change them to summary convictions for some serious crimes. It is wrong, and Canadians see through it. Canadians see through it, because they know what the Liberals are doing. They know where they are putting their priorities.

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives, of course, support avoiding crime. That is why we believe in investing in our criminal justice system, investing in law enforcement and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools to prevent crime. The member says that somehow the Conservatives are throwing up roadblocks to preventing crime. It is quite the contrary.

What I want to reiterate is that where the Liberals are failing to protect victims was on full view over the last two weeks. It was in full view as they defended a convicted killer, Chris Garnier, receiving veterans benefits and continuing to defend the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic, convicted of first degree murder, to a healing lodge where children are present. That is where the Liberals have failed to stand with victims.

Conservatives will be supporting this piece of legislation, because it builds on the good work the Conservative government undertook during our 10 years in office.

[National Defence Act, October 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I find the comments coming from the Liberals somewhat interesting and rich about needing to ram this bill through all of a sudden. Here we are on October 1, and now it is time to ram this bill through when it took them three years to get to this point. When it was first introduced on May 10, we went through two months of sitting in May and June, had midnight sittings through most of the month of June, but yet the government did not see fit to bring it forward for debate then. Instead, the first day of debate for this bill was September 21, a Friday sitting, where just about two hours of debate can occur. Here we are on just our second day on the bill, and all of a sudden the Liberals are crying that we should be immediately ramming this through, before members have a chance to debate it.

In our former Conservative government, we placed victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. We thought it was important the victim of a crime be granted the right and privilege to participate in the criminal justice system. We did this in a number of different ways, but most importantly, through Bill C-32, which created the Victims Bill of Rights. We did that because we felt it was important the victim have a voice and the opportunity to fully participate in our criminal justice system.

It has been disappointing to hear from these Liberals the last couple of weeks, who would rather place criminals ahead of victims on so many different issues. In the past two weeks alone, we saw these Liberals defend granting veterans benefits to convicted murderer Chris Garnier, a convicted murderer who did not spend a single day in the military. He never once donned our nation's uniform, never once participated in Canada's Armed Forces, yet these Liberals stood in this very place and defended the right of that convicted murderer to receive veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, that he, by his own admission, had because of the brutal murder he committed. These Liberals are defending his right to receive treatment paid for by veterans rather than that which is available through our Correctional Service of Canada.

Tomorrow we will be debating a motion in this very place brought forward by our leader, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, about the tragic case of Tori Stafford's murderer being transferred from a prison with bars and razor wire to a healing lodge, where the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada admitted there are often children present. We heard the Liberals defending this once again today in question period, defending the murderer of an eight-year-old girl who was brutally murdered. The Liberals are defending the transfer of her killer from a prison to a healing lodge. It is wrong. Tomorrow, we will see where the Liberals truly stand on victims when they are called to account to stand in this place and defend that decision.

This follows a series of moves by these Liberals to place a greater emphasis on the criminal rather than the victim. Bill C-75 would actually reduce a sentence for a number of what we on this side consider serious crimes.

This would include participating in the activity of a terrorist group, infanticide, a couple of impaired driving offences causing bodily harm, abducting a person under the age of 14, forced marriage, advocating genocide, extortion by libel, arson for fraudulent purposes, and possession of property obtained by crime. They also want sentences reduced for participation in the activities of a criminal organization. With all of the challenges we are facing, these Liberals want to reduce sentence for those participating in gang activities. I know this is wrong and Canadians know it is wrong.

When the former Conservative government introduced the Victims Bill of Rights in 2014, our then justice minister saw fit to make this bill of rights a quasi-constitutional document, a document so important that it would take precedence over many other federal statutes. At the time, our minister of justice, the hon. Peter Mackay, stated on April 9, 2014:

In order to give meaningful effect to victims' rights by all players in our criminal justice system, our government is proposing that this bill have quasi-constitutional status. This would mean that the Canadian victims bill of rights would prevail over other federal statutes, with the exception of the Constitution Act, which includes the Charter of Rights and other quasi-constitutional statutes within our legal system, such as the Official Languages Act, the Privacy Act, and, of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What does this bill do? It effectively reintroduces Bill C-71 from the previous Parliament, which our Conservative government introduced, and applies the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the military justice system. In particular, it provides for four key rights for victims: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

Many Canadians, whether they serve in the Canadian forces or not, often find the criminal justice system intimidating and confusing, and find it challenging to get information about the case being made about the crime perpetrated against them. The right to information is about their right to have information in the general sense of how the system works, and also specifically regarding their case so they know about its progress. It is also to know information about the investigation, and the prosecution and sentencing of the person who perpetrated the act against them.

Whether it comes to the criminal justice system or the military justice system, the second right is the right to protection. This is to ensure that victim safety and security is protected. Whether that is by having their identity protected from public disclosure or using other measures that would allow for their protection, we believe this is exceptionally important.

I do see that my time is running short, so I will not have a full opportunity to talk about the right to participation and right to restitution. However, I will say that those of us on the Conservative benches will always stand for the victims of crime. We will defend the victims of crime and ensure that they have a place in both our criminal justice and military justice systems so that their voices are heard. We will stand with victims.

[Justice, September 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Terri-Lynne McClintic pleaded guilty to the first degree murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford of Woodstock. She was eight years old. Now McClintic is being transferred from a prison with bars and razor wire to a healing lodge, a healing lodge where the commissioner of corrections has confirmed there are children present. Every Liberal on that side knows this is wrong.

Will the Prime Minister reverse this decision?

[Accessible Canada Act, September 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We as parliamentarians, and I think all Canadians, know someone, whether a family member, a neighbour, or a colleague who lives with a disability. Often these are visible disabilities, those we can see, but there are also the invisible disabilities, those we cannot see with the naked eye. When we are crafting and debating legislation and implementing standards, we have to recognize the variety of disabilities that Canadians live with on a daily basis.

For me personally, my mother-in-law is someone who lives with a disability. She lost a leg to amputation about 15 years ago and uses a wheelchair. I speak with her regularly, including earlier today about an issue related to accessibility. I hear the concerns she brings forward on a variety of issues on a daily basis that confront her as she goes about living her life. One example she gave me today was that she was out shopping with her mother and could not enter certain stores because of the lifts at the entrances. She told me she would like to spend money. She would like to buy stuff for her grandkids, my kids, although I do encourage her to stop doing that because our house is getting too full. However, she enjoys doing that and attending things. Certainly this does not fall under federal jurisdiction, but it is an example of how those living with disabilities are in some cases unable to enter certain establishments.

She tells a story of recently going to a local bank and using a lift to get into the bank because there were three steps she would have had to climb to get into the bank. Unfortunately, the lift malfunctioned and her wheelchair flipped over backward, causing her to fall to the ground and smack her head. Again, this is an example of how she was unable to access that facility, which would fall under federal jurisdiction as a federally regulated institution.

I think we all know these examples and stories of friends, family members and people living in our community who are capable of participating fully in society, yet there are challenges to their doing so because of certain barriers. Each of us in our ridings know of organizations that work hard with members of the community specifically on accessibility issues and with Canadians living with disabilities. In my riding, we have L'Arche Stratford, which is a great organization, working with those with disabilities. There are also a number of community living organizations in Stratford, in North Perth, and St. Marys.

In my constituency office, we have Emerson Kuepfer. Emerson works in my office one day a week. He does the shredding for us. He has been living with a disability his entire life. However, he is there every Wednesday morning. He has the biggest smile on his face when he is there because he is working and is contributing to society. The only time he does not have a smile on his face is when the Leafs lose, which happens from time to time. Beyond that, he is always as cheerful as can be, and really is a benefit to our office and to the community as a whole, contributing through those great organizations.

It is important as well to talk a bit about the unfortunate stigma that is still out there when we talk about Canadians living with disabilities. I have fallen victim to it as well. In the past I might have referred to someone as “being in a wheelchair”, but I have been corrected, and rightfully so, because the wheelchair does not define that person. That person uses a wheelchair as a tool. We need to encourage and speak with Canadians about the stigma that somehow someone with a disability may not be able to do all things quite as well as others without a disability, and ensure that they have full access to, and the ability to work and participate in, the community and attend businesses and events.

From my time on West Perth municipal council, I know that we often struggled with the challenges that faced us with the provincial AODA legislation in ensuring that our facilities were fully compliant with the AODA. It was a challenge, and it was not a cheap function either. As an example, our local arena did not have fully accessible washroom facilities, so fixing that was a project we undertook while I was serving on council. Now we have a beautiful facility with fully accessible washrooms so that all people within the community are able to use that facility.

However, it is not always easy. Most of the businesses on the main street in my hometown had a step or two to get in. One innovation done by the local council at the time the reconstruction was done on the main street is the sidewalks were adjusted to ensure a flat entrance to the different businesses. While it was not a panacea and did not fix every single business, it accommodated the vast majority of businesses on the main street. The sidewalks were adjusted to meet the entrances to each of the stores and each business became more accessible. It is not perfect and we cannot always make things perfect with buildings that are 100-plus years old, but it is a good step forward.

The Perth County courthouse in downtown Stratford is a beautiful building which is 150-plus years old. It has served as the seat of county government for 150-plus years. It is not accessible. The irony is that despite it being a provincial courthouse and the home of the county government, it is grandfathered from the provincial AODA legislation, but steps are being taken to make that building more accessible while also maintaining the building's important and historic significance, both as a community landmark and as a functioning part of the community as a courthouse and a seat of government in the community.

I want to talk about some of the experiences we have had in this Parliament with issues of accessibility. I am honoured to serve as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. One of the studies that was undertaken earlier this year, in the spring, was on a debates commissioner.

Leaving aside the debate over the debate, it was interesting to hear the testimony and information from different civil society groups on the issue of accessibility. We heard from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind how broadcasting a debate ought to be structured so that those with a visual impairment could have full access to the debate, to engage with the debate and know what is going on in the debate. We heard a similar message from other Canadians living with disabilities, including those with hearing impairments. Whether it is closed captioning or sign language, there are different ways in which, while relatively minor in the great scheme of things, we can make that specific institution just a little more accessible so that Canadians living with disabilities can have full access to debates.

I will conclude by talking about the RDSP. It has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, but I do believe that among the many great things former finance minister Jim Flaherty did during his time in this place, the RDSP meant so much to him as a father and as a finance minister. Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to the late Jim Flaherty for all that he did. That is a good point on which to conclude.

[Accessible Canada Act, September 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility is also, in effect, the landlord of this very building. I was recently speaking with the esteemed editor of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, who brought up the fact that the west elevator in this very building is out of service and has been since Parliament returned. I wonder if the member might have some comments on that.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Essex for her first place finish in the plowing match. I, unfortunately, got second place this year in the Perth County Plowing Match and so I do have room for improvement next year.

Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers than any other electoral district in this country, and so I am well aware of the concerns of our dairy industry. In fact, if the member reads the comments of Wally Smith when he was president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada following the original TPP negotiation, he was concerned. He did offer his concerns that there was a market access, but he was supportive of the Conservative government's efforts of the day to defend supply management for a generation. There was a comprehensive package available for farmers, for the industry, to transition.

Going forward, we do have the uncertainty with NAFTA, we do have the uncertainty in the negotiations with President Trump, but in this Conservative Party we have defended supply management since our founding. It is in our policy declaration, and I, as a Canadian, I, as a son-in-law of retired dairy farmers, will stand up for our dairy industry and for those in supply-managed commodities and non-supply-managed commodities because it is in the best interests of our Canadian economy.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am proud of the International Plowing Match. I am proud of our strong rural economy. I will have that member know that over 100,000 people attend the International Plowing Match annually. I know the millions of dollars that the IPM has brought into my riding when we hosted it near Harrison a couple of years ago. I know that 100,000 people attended the IPM in my neighbouring riding of Huron—Bruce last year. I know of the importance of our strong rural economy and how much the agricultural sector contributes to that economy.

I will have the member for Spadina—Fort York know that our farmers are the best in the world. They quite literally feed the world, and to hear the condescending attitude of that member towards the agricultural industry, towards the International Plowing Match and all that our farmers and farm families contribute to this world is disgraceful. That member should be ashamed of himself.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

That is right. It was the member for Abbotsford. He worked during an election campaign to ensure that all Canadians would enjoy the benefits of the trans-Pacific partnership.

The very first statement I made in the House, the very first issue I raised in the House in response to the Speech from the Throne, was to encourage the government to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership at the absolute earliest convenience. The government did not do it at the time.

Why is the trans-Pacific partnership important now? We are currently living in an uncertain trading situation. We as Canadians have enjoyed a long and important trading relationship with our friends south of the border. Twenty per cent of our GDP is linked to our trading relationship with our friends in the United States. This year alone, from January to July, $252 billion of our exports went to the United States, representing approximately 75% of our nation's outputs.

Over the summer, like many of my Conservative colleagues, I spoke to many local businesses in my and neighbouring ridings to hear their concerns. The businesses and the people I spoke with are concerned. They are concerned about what tariffs are doing to their businesses. They are concerned about how the costs of the tariffs on steel and aluminum are affecting how they do business. They are concerned about how those costs are being passed on to their consumers and the challenges they are having in negotiating with their suppliers and the terms they are getting with their suppliers.

It is a concern that I hear from small businesses, from farmers and from farm families. I hear it from those in the supply managed sector and those in non-supply managed commodities. My constituents and Canadians across this country are concerned about the uncertainty in the Canada-U.S. relationship and with NAFTA. This is why more than ever we need to be diversifying our markets, which is why when our Conservative government was in office those 53 countries were essential to that progress and why it is now important that we must ratify the CPTPP.

The 11 countries that make up the CPTPP account for a $10 trillion contribution to the global economy, or approximately 13% of the global economy.

As a country, Canada must be one of the first six to ratify this deal so that we can enjoy the benefits of the first-mover countries. We need those benefits. Our farmers, our farm families, our manufacturers, our exporters, our small businesses need to be able to enjoy the benefits associated with the trans-Pacific partnership.

What are some of those benefits? One example is that Australia will eliminate all of its tariffs on agriculture and agri-food products upon the agreement's coming into force, except for one tariff line, which will be eliminated within four years. Some have asked me what that one tariff line is. It is bamboo shoots. For those Canadians who are currently growing bamboo shoots, they will have to wait four years for that to come into force, but I am sure that Canada will have a strong bamboo economy within four years for exports to Australia.

In Perth—Wellington, there is a strong pork industry, a strong beef industry and certainly a strong grains and oil seeds industry. Japan's tariffs are currently up to 20% on pork products, including sausages, and will be eliminated within 10 years. Vietnam has tariffs of up to 27%, which will be eliminated within nine years. For beef, Japanese tariffs of up to 38.5% will be reduced to 9% within 15 years. In Vietnam, tariffs of up to 31% on fresh and chilled frozen beef will be eliminated within two years and tariffs of up to 34% on all other beef products will be eliminated within seven years.

For wheat and barley, Japan will have a specific quota for food wheat of approximately 40,000 tonnes, growing to 53,000 tonnes within six years. We will also have access to CPTPP-wide quota for food barley, which starts at 25,000 tonnes and grows to 65,000 tonnes within eight years. These are the kinds of benefits that Canadian farmers, farm families and exporters can enjoy with an implemented trans-Pacific partnership.

It is not just Conservatives singing the praises of the trans-Pacific partnership and the work that was done by the former Conservative government, but industry leaders within the agriculture industry as well. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said:

Joining the CPTPP will open unprecedented new markets for Canadian farmers producing export-oriented goods, such as red meats, grains and oil seeds.

When I think of my riding, one of the biggest industries from an agriculture standpoint is the pork industry. The Canadian Pork Council chair stated:

This deal will provide our industry stability in vital markets like Japan and opportunities in emerging markets like Vietnam. Canadian pork producers can rest easy knowing that their livelihood and that of thousands other Canadians in rural and urban communities who work in the pork industry is supported by this newest trade deal.

When the original trans-Pacific partnership was signed, Mark Brock, a constituent of mine, then chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, said:

Japan is our largest market for food-grade soybeans, and countries like Malaysia and Vietnam have fast-growing GDPs and are major markets for both food-grade and crush soybeans. With market development a key pillar of our organization, improved access to these important export countries is a great success for our farmer-members.

This is the focus of us in the opposition. This is our focus on the need to expand our markets to ensure that Canadians have access to a growing global market. We need to have access not just for Canadian industries but also for the advancement of all Canadians to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of up to $20 billion in the next 10 years from the original TPP deal, and yet we see delay after delay in finally getting this deal ratified.

As I mentioned earlier, we offered to have this fast-tracked in June. That was denied. We offered to come back to the House in July to debate this bill during the summer to ensure that we were one of the first six countries to ratify it. That did not happen. We as Conservatives will support trade, we will support good trade deals, and now, more than ever, with the uncertainty south of the border, we need to continue to work hard to diversify our trading relationships to ensure that we access the Asia-Pacific markets for our pork industry, our beef industry, our grains industry, for those farmers, farm families and industry leaders who need that access.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the trans-Pacific partnership. I hope we will see this pass at second reading quickly, go to committee and return to the House for third reading in the near future.