John Nater

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Fredericton, and congratulate him on his promotion to parliamentary secretary. It is well deserved.

He asked two questions. The first was on the referendum issue. Our party has not changed our position on a referendum. We said from day one that we thought the only way we could make a substantial change to the way we elect our parliamentarians was through a referendum. That position was not new. We held that from day one. The fact that we were able to make a recommendation through this report, which included a referendum on an alternative system that was more proportional, was indeed a testament to the hard-working members of the committee, including the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who was very engaged on this issue from day one and did exceptional work.

The second question was about the responsible path forward. The responsible path forward goes together with the referendum. Only with the support of our Canadian public can we go forward with this. We have done the consultations. We have done a comprehensive study. It is now the responsibility of the government to bring forward legislation and its responsibility to ensure that Canadians have their say on it. That is only done through a referendum on the matter.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there are probably a number of reasons why the Liberal government broke this promise, not the least of which I would say is that they did not get what they wanted. From day one, the Liberal Party has had a preference for a ranked ballot. The Prime Minister has admitted it.

If there was one consensus the committee heard, and many of us heard in our town halls and discussions, it was that Canadians did not support a ranked ballot system. However, the Liberal government certainly had a preference for that system, because it was one that would help them govern in perpetuity almost. That was not a system that Canadians wanted to see. Canadians wanted to see a robust democracy in our country, the ability to have debates, and not see one party dominate the process and rig the system in a way in which it would be the beneficiary.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member from the Green Party, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The member has been a strong proponent on this issue. She was a member of the special committee, and I think her voice deserves to be heard in the House today on this important issue, and I look forward to hearing her comments later in today's debate.

This is an important issue before us today, and this is an important motion that has been brought forward. The issue at hand is not necessarily about electoral reform in itself, though that is certainly important. The real issue is the broken promise of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. The Prime Minister said one thing to get elected, and then once he was elected, he did all he could to muddle the issue, to change the issue, and to eventually drop the issue altogether.

It is a matter of respect, respect for Canadians, certainly respect for Canadian taxpayers, with the $4.1 million that was spent on this process, respect for Parliament and for us as parliamentarians, and indeed respect for his own caucus and his caucus members who did so much work on this important issue.

This is a broken promise, plain and simple. It is one of the classic examples of the Liberal Party promising something and then the Liberal government breaking that promise, whether it is the small business tax rate promise it broke; whether it is deficit spending, promising $10-billion deficits and then seeing deficits two or three times that size; whether it is promising that their middle-class tax cut would be revenue neutral and then finding that it is nowhere near revenue neutral; or whether it is this example right now on the important issue of electoral reform, another promise broken.

I had the great honour and privilege of serving as an associate member of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I had the honour to sub in a few times for different parts of the committee's travels. I was able to attend a number of meetings in Atlantic Canada and in Montreal. Finally, I had the great honour of joining the committee in Iqaluit, Nunavut to hear the important perspective of the north on electoral reform.

It was always interesting at these meetings to hear from experts, from academics, and from partisans and non-partisans alike on electoral reform. A number of important issues were raised by individuals in our time in Iqaluit. One witness in particular, a young Inuk leader, made a very heartfelt presentation to our committee, and his words stuck with me at the time. In the last eight days, since the minister's announcement that the Liberals were breaking their promise on electoral reform, his words seem even more powerful. I want to read them into the record. It is from October 17, 2016, at the special committee's meeting in Iqaluit. He said:

The reason I bring up things like overcrowded housing, poverty, and abuse is that if you're not sure where you're sleeping, or if you're sleeping in shifts, and if you're not sure what your next meal is going to be or when it's going to be, and if you're not sure when the next time you're going to be sexually abused or physically abused will be, who really cares when the next election is?

He went on to say:

I hate to leave you on such a sad note, but that's the reality of the territory.

This individual brought up some great points about governance in the north and some of the challenges of governance. He also raised a number of these unfortunate issues that are all too prevalent in society. I am not saying that this is an excuse for the Liberal Party breaking its promise, because it is not. It is actually a betrayal of people such as this individual, who despite all the challenges that he and his community are facing, the Liberal Party lured him in to the promise that it was going to do something and then broke that promise. This individual gave up his Monday afternoon, on a workday, to speak to the committee, yet the Liberal Party broke its promise and its commitment.

The Conservative Party has been clear on the issue of electoral reform from the very start. Our position has not wavered. We were very clear that when we change the rules of democracy, when we change the rules of the game, every single Canadian should have a say. That was our commitment from day one, and that commitment did not change. In fact, in the final report from the special committee, with consensus, I might add, from parties such as the New Democrats, the Green Party, and the Conservatives, that commitment to a referendum on a proposed change to the electoral system was in there.

We went into this process with an open mind, with the ability, with our three permanent members of the committee, to interact with the witnesses and with other members to come forward with a consensus opinion.

I would also like to talk a bit about the consultation process. At the beginning of last summer, the then minister of democratic institutions encouraged us as members of Parliament to consult with our constituents through town hall meetings. I might add that it is somewhat patronizing to tell other members of Parliament how they ought to consult with their constituents. It is something we do on a daily basis. We do not need to be told to consult with our constituents, but nonetheless we do consult. I was very pleased to undertake a number of consultation methods in my riding. I sent out a survey in a householder to every single individual household in my riding. I hosted a town hall meeting. I had individual meetings with constituents, and I received emails, social media, phone calls, and a variety of input from different people in my constituency.

A couple of key issues came out of that consultation. The first was certainly that there was a demand. About 80% of respondents felt that there should be a referendum on any proposed changes, and frankly I think that most Canadians would agree with that. Public opinion polling on that matter has been fairly clear: that if we change the way we elect our parliamentarians, a referendum is absolutely necessary. The other important thing that came out of those consultations was that individuals feel there is an important link that must be had between MPs and the electorate.

When the final report did come out from the special committee, that important linkage was highlighted. It showed that the committee took the feedback of Canadians. Recommendation two said very clearly that a system that does not have a link to MPs should not be considered by the government, as such systems sever the connection between voters and their MP. The report that the special committee came up with is indeed a substantial report that is based on strong consultations with individuals in their ridings and individuals who came to the open-microphone sessions and really gave their input.

However, this comprehensive undertaking did not seem to be enough for the Liberal Party, so what did it do? It came out with a website, MyDemocracy.ca. I went to MyDemocracy.ca and I had a good laugh, actually. Unfortunately, it is not a laughing matter; it is an important matter.

Just before Christmas, I submitted an Order Paper question, Question No. 645, asking a number of questions on MyDemocracy.ca, and it got some interesting responses back from the government. First, the cost of this website was $369,058. That includes HST, in case anyone is wondering. That is over $350,000 spent on this website. More interesting was the response to part b of the question. It said that this website would provide an educational experience. It was an educational experience, though I am sure not in the way that the Liberal Party thought. It goes on to say that it would help “Canadians understand their own preferences in relation to the characteristics of different electoral systems”.

It would help Canadians understand their own preferences. How condescending, how arrogant that the Liberals think that they need to help Canadians understand their own preferences on electoral reform. This is simply wrong. Canadians are well aware of where they stand on these important issues. We found out from touring the country and from hearing input from Canadians in our communities across the country that they do not need help understanding their preferences. They know what their preferences are, and unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to understand the consensus that was garnered from this comprehensive report.

Before I wrap up, I do want to highlight this. It has been said often by the members opposite that there was no consensus on this report. In fact there was. If the members in this House read recommendation 12, which had the consensus or the majority of this important all-party committee, there was consensus on a referendum on a proposed system that the government would bring forward with a Gallagher Index of five or less, and that this design be done before a referendum on this issue. It is very clear. That was the consensus by the majority of this all-party committee.

I am very proud to speak today. This is a broken promise, plain and simple. The Liberal Party said one thing; the Liberal government did another.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Yes, Madam Speaker, Canada's middle class will benefit from this trade deal.

I want to thank the hon. member for bringing up a number of points. Perhaps I could invite him to bring some Bothwell cheese, and I will bring in some cheese from Shepherd Gourmet Dairy or Stonetown Artisan Cheese as well. We will have a bit of wine and cheese perhaps. Maybe the member for Niagara Falls would bring some wine as well. We can certainly embrace the number of great products in our ridings.

I heard the member speak last week. He brought up the pork industry in Manitoba, which I know is also extremely important to his province, as it is to my province. That is one particular industry that has had some ups and downs over a number of years.

As the son of pig farmers, my family lived through the 1998 downturn in the pork industry. Having this expansion in markets is absolutely essential to a number of different industries we have spoken about today in the House and in previous debates on important trade deals.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address this point raised by my colleague from Regina—Lewvan.

Let us be very clear. International trade is good for our economy. It does create jobs. That is why I am so proud to endorse this trade deal.

In my riding of Perth—Wellington, I can point to a number of manufacturing industries, a number of food processors, and a number of agricultural groups that can directly point to examples of where increasing trade, increasing our markets, whether it is in the European Union or the countries involved in the trans-Pacific partnership, can expand our markets.

I have one particular manufacturing facility in my riding that has probably tripled in size in the last number of years. It is now exporting to a number of different countries worldwide, south of the border, and down into Mexico. I am proud to support those job creators in my riding who are driving our local economy, and that is thanks to some of the trade deals we have negotiated in the past number of years.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to debate Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

CETA is one of the largest trade deals our country has undertaken since the North American Free Trade Agreement some 20 years ago. CETA is the result of many years of hard work by a number of key players, including key stakeholders, farm groups, agricultural groups, our trade negotiators, and certainly a number of public servants, but also by the hon. member for Abbotsford.

I am honoured to sit in a caucus with the member for Abbotsford. I have much respect for the gentleman for him bringing about such an important trade deal as CETA. I am very honoured to be speaking in favour of this trade deal. Thanks to the hard work of our previous Conservative government, CETA will have not only great benefits for the businesses and agricultural industry in my riding of Perth—Wellington, but in ridings and in communities across Canada as well.

International trade is absolutely essential to a country and to an economy like Canada. Investing our time and resources in international trade deals helps create wealth and reduce poverty in some developing nations as well.

When new trade agreements are negotiated, there are often those who will complain about different aspects of the deal, who will say that we are trading away Canadian sovereignty. People oppose the deal for one reason or another, but we always hear these voices. Thirty years ago, when the former Mulroney government was negotiating the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, we were told that Canada was signing away our sovereignty, that Canada would be a branch plant of the United States. Here we are 30 years later, celebrating the great success of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, which was later supplemented by the NAFTA agreement. Our standard of living is as high as it has ever been and we are a strong and independent nation. In large part, this is due to the great trade deals that have been negotiated by previous governments.

These agreements can have a huge impact on our national economy. In order to avoid the negative impact of reducing tariffs, we must study free trade agreements very carefully in terms of the effects they will have on each sector of the economy. That is what we did with CETA. This agreement was not hastily put together; it is the result of years of consultations and negotiations.

CETA is the next great step in the development of Canada's economy. Our country has considerable resources. However, it is sparsely populated. With our small population, our domestic market cannot maintain our high standard of living. We must expand our global markets. If we want to continue creating jobs in the 21st century, we have to create more opportunities for selling our goods, resources, and technology on foreign markets.

Canadian companies are counting on trade with the United States to secure their growth and job creation. When the economic recession of 2008 hit, it became more evident that Canada had to expand its trade options.

The former Conservative government made excellent progress in response to this urgent need by establishing new bilateral trade agreements with other countries and negotiating important trade agreements such as CETA and the TPP. I was therefore relieved to learn that the current government is implementing CETA. Unfortunately, we do not know what it will do with the TPP. However, on this side of the House, we are very proud to support it.

In an uncertain world of unfortunate protectionist rhetoric, CETA has become more important now than ever. Our exporters simply cannot afford to lose global market access. If we expect our economy to grow into the 21st century, we must have access to the European market.

CETA expands Canada's access to 28 European nations, consisting of 500 million people and a total gross domestic product of $17 trillion. To put that in contrast, the gross domestic product of Canada is only $1.6 trillion. CETA would bring down the tariff walls that block access to Canadian goods in Europe and Canadian businesses would gain special access to the world's largest market for imports. By ratifying CETA, we give advantage to Canadian farmers, farm families, and manufacturers.

The local economy in my riding of Perth—Wellington is built on agriculture. I am very proud to be the son, grandson, and son-in-law of farmers in my riding. I am proud to support so many hard-working farm families that dedicate their lives to feeding our nation and feeding the world.

For communities, like mine in Perth—Wellington, to survive and prosper, we need expanded markets. CETA would eliminate tariffs on Canadian food products as they were imported into Europe. It would eliminate tariffs of up to 9% on fresh apples, 12% on cherries, 7.7% on flour, and 5.1% on sweet corn. CETA would also establish high duty-free tariff rate quotas for beef and pork to be phased in over the next five years.

I will share a couple of important figures with members.

In 2015, total exports of beef from Canada were $2.2 billion and for pork, $3.4 billion. This is a significant export market that Canada can embrace. We have some of the greatest farmers, especially in the pork and beef industry, in the world and we can harness that great potential. This is also all the more important today as farmers, especially in Ontario, are facing an uncertain future as they deal with the rising costs of production, especially as these are further increased by the implementation of carbon pricing in Ontario and nationally as well.

I want to say a bit about the dairy industry.

As hon. members may know, the great riding of Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers and dairy farms than any other riding in the country. I am very proud of our dairy industry and I am very proud to represent so many farm families in my riding that dedicate their lives to producing high-quality Canadian milk. Contrary to the fears that often get presented when international trade deals are being negotiated, the three pillars of supply management have been protected, as they were protected in the TPP deal as well. Producer pricing, production discipline, and import control have all been protected in both the TPP and the CETA negotiations. Canadian consumers will be able to drink delicious Canadian milk. As the son-in-law of retired dairy farmers, I will continue to enjoy drinking a good cold glass of Canadian milk.

I might take this opportunity as well to say how proud I am of some of the cheese makers in my riding. The small communities in Perth—Wellington are quickly developing a name for creating some of the greatest new cheese products now happening in Canada. We have a number of small cheese processors that are doing some great work. I am proud of those local cheese makers who do such great work.

The CETA deal would create up to 80,000 new jobs in Canada. Putting that in perspective, that is 80,000 families that would have an individual in that family who has a job. That is 80,000 families that might be able to buy their first homes. That is 80,000 families that might be able to put their kids in that sporting activity, whether it is hockey or soccer, which they may not have been able to do before if those jobs did not exist. This would have upward of a $12 billion increase to the Canadian economy. That is as much as $1,000 per average Canadian family. This is an exceptionally important trade deal that we as Canadians ought to embrace and as members of Parliament ought to embrace and support as we go forward with these negotiations.

Finally, in 2015, agriculture and agrifood in Ontario alone exported $775 million worth of farm products and agricultural products to the European Union alone. This is a massive market that we as Canadians must embrace.

CETA is not only good for the Canadian economy, it is absolutely essential for our growth and continued prosperity. Protectionism is not the right path for Canada, and I will be voting to support and to ratify the CETA deal.

[National Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias Act, February 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise in this House today to debate this important bill brought forward by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I do want to thank the member for Niagara Falls not only for bringing forward this bill, but for his years of service in this place. I think his service to this august chamber is a testament to his hard work. Certainly as a new and younger MP, it is a great honour to receive guidance from people like the member for Niagara Falls. I thank him for his great service to this institution and for bringing forward the bill.

The bill, an act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, is an extremely important bill. I think all Canadians, no matter where they may live, will be in one way or another affected by Alzheimer's disease or other dementias. Certainly this is true for places like Perth—Wellington.

In Perth—Wellington we are lucky and quite privileged to have great organizations like the Alzheimer Society of Perth County and the Alzheimer Society of Waterloo Wellington. These organizations provide great opportunities and services to individuals suffering from Alzheimer's and other dementias, and also to their families and their loved ones.

Just last night, in fact, I was speaking with my sister who works at a long-term care home in the small town of Milverton in my riding. She told me about a program at that facility called iPods for Memories. It is a great program that provides an individual with Alzheimer's or dementia with an iPod that has music and memories from the individual's younger days which the person can listen to and have a spark of memory. To see the smiles on their faces, to see the laughter of those individuals who all of a sudden have a happy recollection, a happy memory of their younger days is so important. My sister said that anything we can do as a federal Parliament to encourage programs like that, to encourage the ability of those suffering with this terrible disease to have that spark of memory, to have that opportunity to go back to some of those great memories from their younger days is so important.

Just last month I met with board members from the Alzheimer Society of Perth County. We talked about the importance of the bill and the importance of other opportunities that we as parliamentarians and as Canadians can do to help those who suffer from Alzheimer's and help those whose families are also suffering from the effects of having a loved one with this terrible disease.

One way I am hoping to help, and my office is helping, is by becoming a dementia friend. My office staff and I will be undertaking training to make us more aware of the challenges of dementia and how we can serve our constituents that much better by being aware of the challenges of individuals who may come to our office for service who may be suffering from dementia.

We think about the challenges of Canadians who are suffering from Alzheimer's, and also their loved ones. I think we are all impacted by it in one way or another, to see a loved one slowly slipping away, losing their memories, and almost losing a sense of themselves as well.

The unfortunate thing is that each and every year, as many as 25,000 more Canadians will be diagnosed with Alzheimer's or another form of dementia. While we as individuals often assume this is a disease that affects only seniors, unfortunately, we are seeing a growing trend of younger and younger Canadians being affected and being diagnosed with early onset dementia and Alzheimer's and the unique challenges that face younger Canadians, whether it be a loved one, whether it be a husband, a wife, or a parent, who is being robbed of those years of fellowship and comradeship and family that they are no longer able to experience because of the impacts of this terrible disease.

In fact, as many as 747,000 Canadians are currently suffering from Alzheimer's or some form of dementia. I think of Canadian seniors, those who built our country, those who are often referred to as the greatest generation, who have developed so much of our history and who, within themselves, have such great memories, such wisdom, but who, because of the tragedy of this disease, are having these memories, this wisdom stolen from them, taken away from them. When they lose those memories, when they lose that wisdom, we all lose something.

I am very proud to speak in favour of this important bill. I know the Alzheimer's Society of Canada has encouraged all members of Parliament to support the bill, and I am extremely heartened to hear members on all sides of this House speak in favour of the bill.

It is a testament to not only the work that the hon. member for Niagara Falls did on this bill, but to all Canadians and all members of this House who are impacted, and who listened to their constituents and loved ones who suffer from this disease.

Therefore, I am proud to speak and to vote in favour of this bill.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to contracts and standing offers the government has had with advertising agencies, since November 4, 2015: (a) what contracts and standing offers does the government have with advertising agencies, broken down by department and agency; (b) what are the specific details of each contract or standing offer in (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) value, (iii) duration; and (c) for each contract or standing offer in (a), what are the details of each associated advertising campaign including (i) title, (ii) description, (iii) dates, (iv) duration?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to projects funded under the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what specific measures are in place to ensure that small and rural municipalities, specifically those municipalities with a population under 50 000, receive infrastructure funding from the bank; (b) what specific measures are in place to ensure that small and rural municipalities, specifically those municipalities with a population between 50 000 and 100 000, receive infrastructure funding from the bank; and (c) how much infrastructure bank funding has been specifically allocated for communities with a population under 100 000?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) what is the value of the contract the government has with Vox Pop Labs; (b) what specific services are being provided by Vox Pop Labs to the government; (c) what are the titles of the individuals who came up with the questions for the site, broken down by department; (d) what is the rationale for the website not having a question about a referendum; (e) what safeguards are in place to ensure that individuals do not submit multiple surveys that could skew the results; (f) what safeguards are in place to ensure that responses from non-Canadian entities do not skew the results; (g) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the survey is not skewed due to the use of “bots” or other similar devices; and (h) is there a limit on the number of responses that may come from a single IP address, and, if so, what is the limit and how is it enforced?