John Nater

[Florence Kehl, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of the late Florence Kehl.

Florence was a woman of faith, love, and compassion. It was these characteristics that led her to found the Stratford House of Blessing in 1983 with the support and love of her husband Norman. Three and a half decades later, the Stratford House of Blessing stands as a tribute to Florence, an institution of caring and compassion in our community, fulfilling its mandate of serving those who are hurting and in need.

Florence was a recipient of multiple awards and commendations, including both the Queen's Golden and Diamond Jubilee Medals, the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship, and Stratford's Citizen of the Year.

In speaking with members of Florence's family, they mentioned that she had a long list of good deeds she wanted to accomplish in the year to come. It now falls to each of us in our community to fulfill those goals in memory and honour of this remarkable woman.

Through hard work and a kind heart, Florence Kehl made this world a better place.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to the government expenditures on and policy towards sharing economy products, including Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department and agency: (a) what is each department and agency's policy regarding employees using such products or services while on government business; (b) what are the total expenditures, broken down by month, on (i) Uber, (ii) Lyft, (iii) Airbnb, for government employees; (c) what are the total expenditures, including a monthly breakdown, for ministers, parliamentary secretaries and ministerial exempt staff on (i) Uber, (ii) Lyft, (iii) Airbnb; and (d) what is the total amount spent by government employees, broken down by month, on (i) taxis, (ii) hotels?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to Article 1103 of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and Article 809 of the Agreement on Internal Trade: (a) what are the details of each meeting of the Working Group on Alcoholic Beverages since July 1, 2017, including (i) date, (ii) list of attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) decisions and agreements reached; (b) what are the details of each meeting of the Working Group on Party-Specific Exceptions since July 1, 2017, including (i) date, (ii) list of attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) decisions and agreements reached; and (c) what are the details of each meeting of the Working Group on Party-Specific Exceptions since November 4, 2015, including (i) date, (ii) list of attendees, (iii) agenda items, (iv) decisions and agreements reached?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to responses provided by the government to questions on the Order Paper, since November 4, 2015, where the government cited the principles of the Access to Information or Privacy Act as a justification for not providing the requested information: for each response that has such a citation, or any similar type of citation, what are the specific principles used to justify withholding the information, broken down by response and by question?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 11th, 2017]

With regard to the statutory responsibilities of ministers: what are the statutory responsibilities of (i) the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, (ii) the Minister of La Francophonie, (iii) the Minister of Science, (iv) the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, (v) the Minister of Status of Women, (vi) the Minister of Indigenous Services?

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member from Davenport just said that she sees the Minister of Status of Women to be equal to the Minister of International Trade, yet if we look at the order in council appointing the Minister of Status of Women, it says the following:

to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the carrying out of that Minister's responsibilities

Simply calling a minister a minister without actually changing the enabling legislation or the Financial Administration Act does not put that person at the level of the minister or the departmental apparatus of a minister.

Will the member from Davenport correct her statement to reflect that fact?

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend and colleague from Calgary Shepard's first point, that is an absolutely great idea. Maybe all the Liberal government cabinet ministers should have their salaries lowered. Perhaps they should be paid on an outcome basis. Those who achieve what they have been mandated to do would be paid what they ought to be paid.

My colleague mentioned the idea of a minister without portfolio. I would assume that some of these ministers do not have portfolios, because we see so few of them actually achieving anything for Canadians. Lately I have become somewhat concerned that perhaps the Minister of Finance is becoming a minister without portfolio, because we hear so little from him in this House during question period. We ask him questions every day, yet we do not hear him respond to those questions. He does not even respond to simple questions. I am quite concerned that the Minister of Finance has become a minister without portfolio.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, let us look at the Auditor General's report. It laid the blame at the feet of the current government. The member for Winnipeg North said that Phoenix was not ready, yet the Liberal government went ahead with implementing it before it was ready. Now there are backlogs in cases of back pay. People cannot retire because of Phoenix. That lies solely at the feet of the Liberal government. It was the one that pushed the button. It was the one that implemented a system that was not yet ready. It is the one that is responsible.

The Liberals have been in office for 25 months. The Liberal government is the one responsible for public servants, hard-working Canadians who are providing for their families, not being paid.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View brings up with respect to the challenge of Phoenix. The issues with Phoenix are so many in number that it has actually become a verb: being “phoenixed”. I have talked to different people, both in the public service and on the Hill, who have been “phoenixed”, who have had challenges. Just yesterday I heard a story from an individual who tried to retire, but he could not retire because of Phoenix. This is someone who spent 35 years working in the federal public service, and he could not retire because of Phoenix. The system would not let him retire.

We know that the Liberal government was the one that pushed the button on Phoenix before it was ready. We are now facing a backlog of hard-working public servants, who serve the citizens of our country, who are not being paid because of the Liberal government.