John Nater

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order concerning the draft supplementary supply bill that was distributed earlier this morning. In schedules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, the proposed bill contains provisions to pay a number of ministers of the crown through the use of an appropriation act. Specifically, payments would be made, and I believe have been made, to ministers without portfolio or ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry of state.

This initiative—raising all ministerial salaries—was part of the Prime Minister's efforts at gender equality in appointing female ministers with no portfolio responsibilities. Then he discovered, or the ministers discovered, that there was a significant salary variable.

The government subsequently introduced Bill C-24 to amend the Salaries Act to give statutory authority to these pay increases. Bill C-24 is still before the House of Commons, was debated at second reading on October 7 and October 19, 2016, but has not yet received approval in principle. It has languished on the Order Paper, neglected and unloved, and so we are confronted with the rule against anticipation.

It is long-established procedure that estimates cannot be used as a substitute or shortcut for legislation, and it is clear that the government saw the need for legislation when it introduced Bill C-24 to amend the Salaries Act. The House will appreciate the irony of a government that ran against omnibus bills using obscure wording in the estimates to hide and to expedite pay increases for ministers.

O'Brien and Bosc has this to say at page 869:

The Chair has maintained that estimates with a direct and specific legislative intent (those clearly intended to amend existing legislation) should come to the House by way of an amending bill. Speaker Jerome stated in a ruling:

...it is my view that the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.

He also said in a further ruling:

...supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government. ... legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for Members to participate in debate and amendment.

I have a number of references in support.

The collected rulings of Speaker Lamoureux, at page 429, reference a proceeding on December 10, 1973. The issue is stated, “Should items of a legislative character be included in the Estimates?” The decision of the Speaker was,“No, they should not.” A subsequent entry on page 430 contains this statement: “Parliament cannot legislate by Estimates.”

In Beauchesne's, sixth edition, citation 941 at page 259 states:

If a Vote in the Estimates relates to a bill not yet passed by Parliament, then the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant Vote in the Estimates by an Appropriation Act.

Reference is made to the 18th edition of Erskine May at page 364, where it is stated:

A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion.

Here I respectfully remind you, Mr. Speaker, that debate on Bill C-24 has been adjourned since October 19, 2016.

In a similar manner to the ruling at page 69 of the Journals of January 25, 1973, I would suggests that at this point the House in its totality has not made a decision on the supplementary estimates except to study them. Bill C-24 has, however, been given first reading, and the House is now considering whether it should be read a second time. The bill to amend the Salaries Act would be the more effective way of securing spending authority, and the supplementary estimates ought not to anticipate the decision of the House.

In anticipation of a response from the government that this is not a new practice, I would make two points: first, disorder is not cured by repetition; second, in this instance there is a bill to amend the Salaries Act on the Order Paper. While the practice may have slipped through in the past and become law, this House should respect its own procedures for considering bills.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you remove all references to authority for ministerial salaries contained in these supplementary estimates.

[Income Tax Act, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-323. Before I do so, I want to thank my colleague, the member for York—Simcoe, for bringing forward the bill. As our opposition critic for Canadian heritage, I consider him to be a national treasure for his hard work on this file.

In fact, this is not the only private member's business he has brought forward. He also has two other motions on the Order Paper, Motion No. 67 and Motion No. 62, which are equally important matters that I hope the House will take up at some point. There is the recognition of Sir John A. Macdonald's summer home in Rivière-du-Loup, and Motion No. 62, which recognizes the birth place of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in Neustadt, Ontario, which is just outside my riding. It is an important historical marker in southern Ontario, recognizing an exceptional prime minister.

To the bill at hand, it is an important bill for our communities and for the preservation of our historical heritage properties across our great country. I have to admit that I have a soft spot for heritage buildings. There are many beautiful older buildings in my riding of Perth—Wellington, which I am proud to highlight from time to time. In fact, my Wellington county constituency office is in one such heritage building. It is a beautiful old post office. It was the Harriston town post office for many years. Unfortunately, as often these older buildings do, it fell into a state of disrepair.

Shortly after I was elected, I was able to take a tour of the building and to see the state of repair it was in at the time. Thanks to a hard-working local family, it took ownership of the old post office and restored it to an exceptionally high level of standard. Now my constituency office in Wellington county is located in that building. It has been renamed the “Old Post” and is now home to a number of different local businesses and community groups. I am proud to have played a small role in the restoration of that building.

In Perth—Wellington, we also have other important sites, such as the Fryfogal Tavern and Arboretum. The Fryfogel Tavern is actually the last surviving site along the Huron Tract from the 1800s. It is an old building with a great degree of heritage and history associated with it. Its original proprietor, Sebastian Fryfogel, was a Swiss national who came to Canada at the time. He served as the first acting warden of Perth county. He served as a tax collector for the county and was the local militia leader. He had a strong history in the country.

Currently, the Stratford Perth Heritage Foundation is working to have that site designated as a national historic site. If it is successful, it would be the first national historical site in Canada to have a Swiss connection. Being of Swiss heritage myself, I find it is an important issue to highlight because it is an important site. I look forward to seeing Parks Canada review that documentation to hopefully make it a national historical site.

With 2017 upon us, and the 150th anniversary of Confederation, preserving and protecting our national heritage is important, now more than ever. Bill C-323 certainly would help us to do that.

As all members will know, rehabilitation and preservation of historic and heritage buildings is not necessarily easy. Nor is it inexpensive. When dealing with century-plus old buildings, the wiring is no longer up to code and accessibility standards have not been kept up to code. In many cases, neglected roofs need to be replaced, insulation needs to be redone, and windows need reinstallation in a way that preserves the historic and heritage nature of those buildings. Unfortunately, it is often not economically or financially viable to undertake these important renovations, so buildings are often demolished or, as the member for Kingston and Islands mentioned earlier, are left to be demolished by neglect. This is unfortunate because we lose a part of our history when we lose these important buildings.

Bill C-323 proposes to introduce a tax credit for expenses related to the rehabilitation of a historic property and will establish a tax deduction for the capital costs of property used in the course of historic properties rehabilitation. This will provide the owners of historical properties with a tax credit of up to 20% of the cost of rehabilitating the property, which will incentivize owners to restore their properties and assist them in their efforts to do so. In short, it makes it more affordable to preserve historical buildings, thus allowing more of our great historical architecture to remain standing rather than be demolished.

Bill C-323 would also create an accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible capitalized costs incurred during the same conditions of the tax credit. It would do so by allowing a minor reduction on the owner's income tax for the costs of rehabilitating the building. This would ensure that when owners of an historic property undertake restoration work at personal expense they are compensated. The restoration of a historic property, after all, is indeed a public good and it is only fair that, when individuals do the work at their own personal expense, we as a country are able to help in some way.

I understand there are some concerns that have been brought forward by different people about this bill, but I think that it strikes the right balance in preserving our heritage but also incentivizing individuals while respecting the public coffers as well. There are certain guidelines included in this bill. First, not any building qualifies. The building must first be on the National Register of Historic Places. Second, an architect must certify that the eligible building has undergone rehabilitation in accordance with the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada, and this will ensure that proper rehabilitation work has been done in accordance with the standards. It also incorporates a 10-year limit that the tax credit can be used. This strikes the right balance in terms of providing adequate support but not becoming too high a cost on the federal treasury.

I would also like to remind hon. members in this House that this bill is supported by a number of heritage and historical groups, including the National Trust for Canada, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to preserving our national heritage. In fact, the organization appeared with a brief before the Standing Committee on Finance, and the brief stated, “The federal tax system and federal spending are vital instruments shaping the ability of Canadians to protect and revitalize heritage places”. The brief went on to recommend that the government should introduce a federal rehabilitation tax incentive for heritage properties in Canada. Bill C-323 would do such a thing. It would help us preserve our national heritage buildings and our national collective heritage.

Again, I want to congratulate the member for York—Simcoe for bringing forward this important bill. It is an exceptionally pertinent and important way of preserving our heritage buildings, and we as parliamentarians should make every effort possible to encourage those who own heritage buildings to undertake the necessary work to keep them in good repair.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am unfortunately not the member for Calgary Forest Lawn but I will nonetheless try my hand at time travel. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say “infamous” as that would be unparliamentary, but it is a very famous Liberal family. Could it just be that he is being rewarded for his long-time dedication to the Liberal Party, or could it perhaps be that it is simply a reward for having been left out of cabinet when the cabinet was formed?

Finally, the bill states that the committee chair will receive an annual allowance of $42,200. This amount is over three times the usual allowance of $11,900 given to chairs of standing committees.

In my riding of Perth—Wellington, $42,000 is a good annual salary. The chair of this committee will receive the equivalent of a Canadian worker's salary, in addition to the $170,400 parliamentary salary he already receives.

There is no question in my mind that Parliament and we as parliamentarians are open to a degree of parliamentary oversight of our national security agencies. This is something that our party is not opposed to. The challenge the Conservative opposition has, as members of this august chamber, is the way in which the Liberals have structured this committee. The way in which they have imposed their self-appointed chair on this committee and the way in which they have introduced amendments at report stage and rejected some of the amendments of the all-party committee simply go to show that this is more window dressing than actually an effective oversight committee of the House.

For these reasons and so much more, this bill simply does not reflect the international examples that have been provided in the past of effective parliamentary oversight activities.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to debate this important issue.

Listening to the debate thus far today in the House and hearing the parliamentary secretary talk about the amendments that his government is bringing in at report stage and the amendments that it rejected at committee made me think of one of the great orators that the House has ever heard, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, one of this country's prime ministers, a relatively short-lived prime minister but a prime minister nonetheless, who was actually from my home area of Perth County.

Arthur Meighen once gave a speech and his words are valuable to the debate we have at hand. He was speaking of Edmund Burke, one of the great British thinkers, when he said:

...a ministry must yield to Parliament and not contrive that Parliament be new-modelled until it is fitted to their purposes. If the authority of Parliament...is to be upheld as long as it coincides in opinion with His Majesty's advisers, but to be set at nought the moment it differs from them, then the House of Commons will shrink into a mere appendage of administration and entirely lose its independent and effective character.

I get the impression from the structure and the makeup of this committee that is exactly what the government is trying to do.

Throughout the history of our great parliamentary democracies, the supremacy of Parliament has been well established. As a nation-state, there is no question our country owes a duty of care to the security and safety of our citizens.

Parliament has a duty to ensure that our laws are properly in place and that they protect our citizens. We must also be sure that we do not overstep the boundaries that are set out for us, which is why we are not entirely opposed as such to the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee, one that may be similar to that of the United Kingdom. The challenge though is that the government of this day has refused to listen to the important input of not only the committee but of members from this side of the House and from members down the way in the NDP as well. The government has refused to take the advice of our former public safety critic, the member for Durham, and the member for Victoria, both of whom have brought important contributions to this debate, but nonetheless, the government has refused to go about amending this bill and creating this bill in a way that would truly protect the rights of our citizens.

One specific element of the bill that I find troubling is subclause 4(3), which reads:

The committee is not a committee of either House of Parliament or of both Houses.

As such, the committee is called the security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. It would be a misnomer to call it a parliamentary committee because it is not and the government has structured it as such, very deliberately, I would say.

I would suggest it has been done so to exempt the committee from some of the normal practices that parliamentary committees of the House operate under. The government in effect, I would argue, is creating the committee to be a branch of the executive branch rather than the legislative branch of Parliament, and the government has failed to truly justify this approach.

Upon further examining the details of Bill C-22 it becomes clear the Liberal cabinet is not looking to enhance parliamentary oversight but rather to expand its own power. In fact, clause 21 of the bill gives the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone, in consultation with the Prime Minister's appointed chair, the ability to revise sections of these reports. In other words, it would give the Prime Minister the opportunity to force a redaction of the reports before they are tabled in Parliament. This allows the Prime Minister to decide what Parliament can and cannot see. So much for a parliamentary committee.

I would remind the Liberal government of the words of one of our former Speakers who, on April 27, 2010, said, and I quote from the Speaker's ruling on that date:

The insinuation that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which Members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.

In fact, it was members on that side, members of the now Liberal government, who argued vehemently at that time for the release of sensitive information. Now they have constructed a committee which would, in effect, give the Prime Minister, in consultation with his own appointed chair, the ability to redact and keep information from this chamber.

A committee of parliamentarians, or what should be a parliamentary committee, should be the master of its own domain. It should, in effect, be able to decide how to act within its own jurisdiction.

I am also concerned that Bill C-22 authorizes cabinet to not disclose certain information to the committee. According to the rules established by clause 15 of the bill, the committee does not receive information directly from the departments. The committee must instead submit a request to a minister.

Clause 15(3) states:

After the appropriate minister receives the request, he or she must provide or cause to be provided to the Committee, in a timely manner, the requested information to which it is entitled to have access.

The expression “in a timely manner” is difficult to interpret. The ministers can put off complying with the request. My experience with how ministers can delay responding to committees' requests indicates that this clause is highly problematic. The bill should establish strict deadlines for the departments' response.

What concerns me the most is the fact that after stating that it wants to strengthen the role of Parliament by enhancing the independence of committees, cabinet chose the chair of the committee. We learned from the media that the member for Ottawa South will chair the committee.

I have no particular opinion on the performance of the member for Ottawa South as a parliamentarian. I am certain he is an exceptionally adequate parliamentarian and representative of his riding, but the fact is that this chair was appointed by the Prime Minister. He was not elected by fellow committee members, who, in fact, have not even been appointed yet and may not be appointed for several months to come, but the Prime Minister has already appointed his preferred choice as chair of the committee, likely a year and a half before the committee is fully established.

I would remind the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that they ran on a platform of being open, accountable, and transparent, but they appointed a member with really no particular experience in the field of public safety or national security organizations to provide oversight of Canada's covert security and intelligence activities. The Prime Minister chose such a member to serve as chair. Why? Could it perhaps be that the member for Ottawa South has a particular skill set, particular experience, in one very precise area, and that is being a long-time Liberal? He comes from one of the most famous Liberal families in Ontario.

[Taxation, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Kathleen Wynne's example is clear: failed Liberal policies and skyrocketing energy costs go hand in hand. Every day we hear new concerns from seniors who cannot afford to heat their homes, and small businesses whose energy costs are doubling.

Now the Liberals are refusing to release the numbers that would show the actual cost of the carbon tax on Canadian families. Why the carbon tax cover-up? Will the Liberals do the right thing and release the numbers or are they going to keep Canadians in the dark?

[Taxation, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, under our government, CO₂ emissions actually went down.

Under the failed Liberal policies of the Kathleen Wynne Liberals, life in rural Ontario is becoming more expensive. In fact, high energy costs are especially hard on seniors living on fixed incomes, on farmers, on farm families, and on small businesses. Now the federal Liberals are taking lessons from the failed playbook of the Kathleen Wynne Liberals.

Why is the Prime Minister forcing a carbon tax on rural Canadians who can least afford it?

[Tree Planting, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize some of the great programs in Perth—Wellington that celebrate our national heritage and conservation efforts.

For over 100 years, Perth—Wellington has been home to some important environmental stewardship activities. Recently, a forestry consultant determined that the Monteith farm in Perth County is home to the oldest tree plantation in Ontario. This proud history is today reflected in such tree planting programs as West Perth's Canada 150 plant-a-tree program, trees for Minto, and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority's trees on private lands program. In Wellington County, the green legacy program has planted more than one million trees since 2004, making it the largest municipal tree planting program in North America.

These programs have contributed to improving air quality, preventing soil erosion, creating natural windbreaks and snow fences, and enhancing our region's natural beauty.

I look forward to more tree planting this spring across Perth—Wellington.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this very important matter before the House. Bill C-31 is an act to implement the free trade deal with Ukraine. Canada is blessed to have such strong trade deals with many of our international colleagues around the world, and this is certainly no exception.

I am very proud to be part of the Conservative Party, which during the past 10 years it was in office signed many bilateral and multilateral trade deals, such as the one with the European Union, which we were very pleased to see pass at report stage earlier this week. We look forward to this important bill progressing to third reading next week.

I am also very pleased to be a member of a party whose government negotiated the trans-Pacific partnership, which, I must say, is a true testament to the hard work of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, who spent many years as the international trade minister negotiating these important deals on behalf of Canada. I wish the member well as he recovers. I am very proud to serve in a caucus with the member for Abbotsford.

The issue at hand today is Bill C-31, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. This is an important deal, because it further strengthens our relations in that important region. The Conservative Party has always been a true friend to Ukraine. Conservatives have always stood for Ukraine in the international world. In fact, it was a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, who was the first to recognize the Ukrainian government after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Our country is well remembered in Ukraine, and my party has certainly done great work in negotiating the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.

This bill would bring the opportunity to open new markets for Canadian manufacturers and producers, certainly in the agricultural community as a whole. I am very proud to represent the great riding of Perth—Wellington, which has one of the strongest agricultural communities in this country. There is a strong beef and pork sector in my riding, and it is always looking to expand markets. I am proud to stand to speak on behalf of the farmers in my riding, who are really working hard to expand markets.

I am going to leave it there. I wanted to say how important this trade deal is for Canadian farmers, businesses, and exporters. I hope we will continue to expand our markets and that all members will support Bill C-31.

[All Senior Care Seniors Games, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to mark the All Senior Care Seniors Games. This is a yearly event held in early February at ASC Living Centres across Canada.

There are two such retirement homes in my riding of Perth—Wellington: Cedarcroft Place and McCarthy Place Retirement Residence.

Today marks the closing ceremonies of this year's seniors games, and across Canada residents and community members will be gathering to mark and celebrate the successes of our senior citizens.

Events include, walking the hallways, Wii bowling, billiards and bocce, Wii golf, shuffleboard and various card games. The ASC Senior Games are an opportunity for all residents to participate and socialize, no matter the activity level.

Healthy aging is important as our population ages, and the All Senior Care Senior Games help our senior citizens exercise their bodies and minds.

I would like to thank all the organizers at the All Senior Care Seniors Games on a successful year, and congratulate those who participated.