John Nater

[Paris Agreement, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting, the response the minister gave to my friend for Drummond. She said that this is just basically a political game or ploy to try to trap the Conservative Party. Therefore, she is wasting valuable House time to play a political game with the official opposition. What nonsense.

What is even more interesting is that the motion is brought forward when the Liberal government is completely stalled in its legislative agenda. The Liberals cannot get anything through, yet they bring in this motion.

I find it interesting that the minister would be so much against the principles and traditions of the House that she would offend the Wednesday tradition, the Wednesday principle, where a motion is not put on notice prior to giving all parties the opportunity to discuss this in caucus. This motion was put on notice last Thursday. It is now being moved on closure prior to tomorrow's caucus meeting and being voted on tonight.

Would the minister not agree that this is all just a political game, as she just said?

[Government Appointments, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, not even the Liberals are believing these answers.

Last night, a Liberal senator questioned Madeleine Meilleur's ability to act independently from the Liberal government. He suggested that not enough time had passed to develop the neutrality and distance needed.

If Madeleine Meilleur cannot even convince long-time Liberals that she is independent, how can Canadians believe she will be independent of the Liberal government?

[Government Appointments, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last night, in the another place, Madeleine Meilleur claimed that while she was serving as Ontario's Attorney General, she acted in an impartial fashion. However, at the same time she was Attorney General, she was also headlining cash-for-access events for the Ontario Liberals. Given her track record, are we really expected to believe she will be an impartial officer of this place?

Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that this appointment is what it is? It is a Liberal reward for a Liberal partisan.

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the political games are being played by that party that is going to its donation lists to make partisan appointments as officers of this place.

Last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that there was a firewall between her and the staff members in her office who worked directly with and for Madeleine Meilleur, but not a single ounce of evidence has been laid before the House of any proof that this firewall was in place before she was appointed as official languages commissioner. Therefore, I would ask the minister, what evidence can she share with the House that a firewall existed before the nomination took place?

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we just learned that Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick has filed an injunction in Federal Court to block the appointment of a partisan nominee, Madeleine Meilleur, in the position for official languages commissioner.

We know that her appointment has lost the trust of key official languages communities, the people she will be entrusted to represent, yet they are filing court injunctions to block this partisan nomination.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, withdraw the nomination, go back to the drawing board, and appoint someone without key donations to the Liberal Party?

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the awards that she received, but about the rewards that she is being given for being nominated for being a Liberal donor.

Let us talk about Madeleine Meilleur's time as an MPP and a Liberal cabinet minister. Her director of communications is now the minister's director of communications. The director of policy was a former executive director to the Kathleen Wynne Liberals.

The minister claims she set up a firewall, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the firewall is as flimsy as the minister's answers in this House. Will the minister provide evidence that this firewall actually exists, or does it exist at all?

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Madeleine Meilleur met with Gerry Butts and Katie Telford. Why? She told us in committee. Madeleine Meilleur confirmed that she met with both of them.

Yesterday in the House the minister said that never happened. Was the Minister of Canadian Heritage misleading the House when she said so? It is time for the truth. How many times did Madeleine Meilleur meet with members of the PMO before being appointed as the nominee to the official languages portfolio?

[Points of Order, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise on the same matter. In similar testimony, Madam Meilleur informed the committee that she was informed by the justice department that she would be nominated as the official languages commissioner. However, in further testimony, she stated that—

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member opposite might agree that the reason we have seen such a paralysis in the legislative process is due to the conduct of the government House leader and the House leadership team.

I want to share a quick quote from that notorious Conservative right-wing newspaper, the Toronto Star. Robin Sears writes:

The Liberals have installed one incompetent house leader after another, inflicting serious wounds on their own credibility. Perhaps a seasoned veteran will remind the newbies that exceptionally deft and silk smooth house management was always part of the Liberal DNA. From Alan MacEachern, through Herb Gray, to [the member for Regina—Wascana], and Don Boudria, Liberal house leaders were the gold standard.

Those veterans must wince at the mess [the government House leader] has made for this government of parliamentary reform, let alone any cross-bench goodwill.

Would the member agree that the incompetence and the mismanagement by his own party's House leadership team has put us in the state we are now, where we are seeing a trickle of government legislation actually being passed through this place and sent to the other place and then having it sent back here again?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. It seemed to be on Bill C-45, the marijuana bill. He talked a little about the budget implementation bill, but I thought we were debating the extension of sitting hours. Perhaps I will ask a question on that since that seems to be what we are debating.

My question is fairly simple. Why is it that the Liberal Party is so intent on all of a sudden ramming legislation through the House after having such a lax legislative agenda thus far, sending it off to the other place where they amend it and send it back our way? Why do we not just take the due diligence here and actually accept opposition amendments, rather than sending it to the other place and having them amend it and send it back here?