John Nater

[Medical Assistance in Dying, April 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if one were to review House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, there is an interesting discussion throughout chapter 24 on the importance of parliamentary records. Specifically, pages 1209 to 1210 speak to the importance of the corrections to the official record.

In an effort to ensure the record reflects that the Conservative government left a $4.3 billion surplus, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table January's Fiscal Monitor.

[International Trade, April 12th, 2016]

The Liberal budget showed a complete neglect for Canadian agriculture, and it is a slap in the face to the 2.2 million Canadians who rely on the industry. However, there is one thing the government can do to help Canadian farmers and farm families: ratify the trans-Pacific partnership. Farmers support it. Small businesses support it. The energy sector supports it. The only one we do not know about is the Liberal government.

Can the minister stand in her place today and commit to bringing the TPP to this House for ratification?

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the sectors that the Liberal government has chosen to leave out of the budget. Whether it is the oil and gas sector or the agricultural industry, it is simply unacceptable. These important industries form the backbone of our rural economy, though in many Conservative-held ridings, mind. It seems that the Liberal government has been focusing on its pet projects rather than on the needs of all Canadians. When we look at agriculture in particular, which I am acutely aware of, it has left it out to dry.

However, there is one thing that the Liberal government could do that would assist the agriculture industry and would assist it quickly. That would be to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership. The Liberals can go on all they like about consultations, but at the end of the day, the Canadian public supports the TPP, agriculture supports the TPP, and they should get on with ratifying it.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

During the election campaign, I went to homes in every corner of Perth—Wellington. In Perth—Wellington, some homes have home mail delivery and others have Canada Post community mailboxes.

In Perth—Wellington, we have both types of delivery. I personally have never had home delivery in my community. We have had community mailboxes or a post office box. In the community of Stratford, we have heard some concerns about the movement to community mailboxes, since it has never had these before.

It is important that Canada Post address these concerns. Whether we can say as a blanket statement that it should return to home delivery, I do not think that is wise, especially since Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation and should be dealt with as such. It should be making the decision in the best interests of all Canadians, not something that is going to tax them unduly going forward.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, certainly not. I am proud to be part of the party of the late Jim Flaherty, who had some wise and sage advice when he advised government that simply because there is a surplus does not mean that we should spend it.

Since the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York wants to quote the Fiscal Monitor, let me quote another paragraph from it. It states “the Government posted a budgetary surplus of $4.3 billion, compared to a surplus of $1.3 billion” in the previous fiscal year.

What is even more galling is that the government does not even have a plan to return to balanced budgets. It has five years of runaway budget deficits with no planned return to balance. When we went into deficit in the worst economic downturn of a generation, we had a plan, and we returned to surplus a year ahead of schedule.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on the first budget of the 42nd Parliament. However, I stand here disappointed with the budget that the Liberal government has decided to present. Not only is the budget out of balance, but it is out of touch with the people of Perth—Wellington and the people of Canada.

In fact, earlier this winter I undertook pre-budget consultations with key stakeholder groups in my riding. I reached out to economic and business organizations, charities, service clubs, and municipal officials in all 11 municipalities in my riding of Perth—Wellington. I carefully reviewed their feedback, and a number of common themes emerged right off the bat. I forwarded those concerns to the hon. Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, the concerns of my constituents and the communities in my riding are not reflected in this Liberal budget.

In the responses I received, there was a key theme. The people of Perth—Wellington expected their government to operate within its own means. They did not want to see runaway spending and they did not want to see spending for the sake of spending, yet today we see massive deficits and a long-term plan that does not include returning to balanced budgets.

In fact, in this year alone, $30 billion of new deficit spending is occurring, and it will be $113 billion over the next five years. Rather than choosing to pay down the national debt, the Liberals are mortgaging Canadians for generations to come.

It is one thing for the Liberals to deny the fact that they were left with a surplus, but it is quite another thing for them to break their own promise and create deficits three times larger than they clearly promised in the election campaign.

The current government says time and time again that because interest rates are low, now is the time to spend, but what the Liberals fail to realize is that it is possible to invest without spending into unnecessary deficits. Wise spending means making targeted investments to bring about long-term economic growth, as our government did over the past decade; in fact, since the depths of the global economic recession, under the leadership of our former Conservative government we saw the private sector create nearly 1.3 million net new jobs, the largest per capita job creation in the G7. However, now the current Liberal government is spending for the sake of spending rather than to stimulate the economy.

Simply put, we cannot invest in the needs and priorities of Canadians by saddling them with future debt from the reckless spending of the current Liberal government.

I am troubled by the fact that the budget includes a number of commitments that are lacking in detail. The budget does not say how much the Prime Minister's youth council will cost, how much it will cost to implement the proposed changes, or how much the government will spend to study flexible work arrangements for workers in federally regulated sectors. The government should be more forthcoming with its estimates for these things.

It goes without saying that the energy sector is struggling right now. Under the circumstances, a responsible government should have a plan to support this crucial sector and the millions of Canadians who depend on it. The government has not come forward with any such plan, and there is nothing in the budget to drive investment.

We have all seen the statistics and the reports on layoffs in western Canada's oil sector. Several MPs have talked about this issue in detail. I would remind all hon. members that the decline of the energy sector has a negative impact on other sectors of our economy. Businesses across the country are losing clients and consumers tied to the energy sector. Now those businesses, including some in Perth—Wellington, are laying people off too.

The government failed to set a budget that will grow the economy and create good, high-paying jobs in the private sector. If the Liberal government had a sensible plan to support small businesses, it would have invested in programs and initiatives that have proven to be successful over the past decade. It would have invested in the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario or committed to maintaining the hiring credit for small business.

Instead, it chose to bring down a budget that cancels useful tax credits and cuts effective federal investments.

Another way to help small business thrive is to cut red tape. I hear this time and time again as I speak with local businesses in my riding of Perth—Wellington. In fact, just last week I spoke with the owner of a food processing facility in my riding in the town of St. Marys. This local facility has enjoyed great success commercially across this country and its products are now on the shelves at Costco and supermarkets across this great country. He had an interesting statistic for me. He told me that in the past year he has had more government auditors, inspectors, and government employees go through his plant than he has employees.

If we want to help small businesses, we need to address the burdensome regulation that they face, not add to it. What is more, the Liberal government has already broken its promise to small businesses. The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the promise related to lowering the income tax rate

...was broken in today's budget, as [it was announced] the rate will remain at 10.5% after 2016. This is expected to cost small firms over $900 million more per year by 2019.

In my riding of Perth—Wellington, agriculture is the main economic driver. In fact, it is one of the largest industries in Canada. In Perth—Wellington it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers than any other riding in the country. Wellington County has more chicken farmers than any other county in Ontario. Our pork and beef farmers are second to none, and since Perth—Wellington has some of the most fertile farmland in the country, our grain farmers are second to none.

The farmers in my riding are disappointed with the Liberal government. Not only was agriculture completely left out of the Speech from the Throne, but in the entire 269-page budget document, agriculture enjoyed two pages. The first page was simply reaffirming Growing Forward 2, which our former Conservative government helped to implement with the support of the provinces, and the second page was simply referring to genomics projects undertaken in Ottawa. There was no support for Canadian farmers or Canadian farm families. The backbone of our rural economy was completely left out in the cold by the Liberal government. If the Liberal government wants to completely ignore our rural communities and our farmers, it should simply say so.

Another thing I want to touch on very briefly is the idea of rural infrastructure. It is disappointing that despite all the promises that were made during the election campaign, there is very little new money for the traditional infrastructure of rural communities, such as roads and bridges.

In fact, Perth—Wellington has a number of significant infrastructure needs as they relate to roads and bridges. As a former municipal councillor myself, I saw that need first-hand and saw the challenges faced by provinces such as Ontario when we put undue regulations and restrictions on the funding of rural infrastructure projects. We need to allow municipalities more flexibility in choosing priorities that they see fit and work with them from that measure.

Finally, I want to address briefly the idea of skills and the need to invest in skills in a well-trained economy.

In my riding of Perth—Wellington we have a skills shortage. We have a labour shortage. We actually need more people to fill the needs of certain skilled trades and unskilled trades in my riding of Perth—Wellington, yet the budget does not address many rural concerns, such as transportation options in communities or targeted investments in skills training, such as apprenticeship loans and the Canada job grant. As well, the hiring credits that the Liberal government cancelled will do nothing to help these small businesses continue to function.

On behalf of the people of Perth—Wellington, I will be unable to support the budget. It simply does not support or even respect our rural communities, our manufacturers, our tradespeople, our farmers and farm families, or the hard-working families who struggle to make ends meet on a weekly basis.

I will be voting against the budget.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition signed by constituents in my riding of Perth—Wellington regarding potential changes to the Elections Act.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose an expansion of the training mission or development aid in the region.

What we do oppose is cutting and running on the CF-18 side of the mission. We believe that we are best served, and that our allies are best served, by leaving our CF-18s in the fight, by providing the assistance that our brave men and women in the Canadian Forces and those on the ground require.

That is why our former Conservative government undertook that mission. That is what we would like to see continued.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question. It is nice to hear him speak in the House from time to time.

I would just go back to the fact that recently Angus Reid polling found that 63% of Canadians actually support our continued bombing mission. More to the point of the question, we can do both. We can provide humanitarian assistance and we can continue the CF-18 mission in the region. In fact, it is almost incumbent upon us to do both. We cannot deliver the humanitarian assistance, the humanitarian aid and the stabilization in the region, and the diplomatic assistance, if we are not providing the military assistance as well.

I am proud of our government's past associations with our international allies. Our allies are relying on us. I have yet to know of any of our allies who have said that they do not need our CF-18s and that we should pull them out completely. The fact of the matter is that our allies would prefer that they were there. The U.S. task force commander in the region, for the air force, has said as much.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today at this late hour to be one of the final speakers on what is a very important motion about a very important issue.

It is important to begin by acknowledging the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces, especially in the Royal Canadian Air Force for all they have done in the mission to this point. It is also important to recognize the families and loved ones of those members of the Canadian Forces. When our brave men and women are deployed, so often it is their loved ones, their families, manning things at home and keeping the support when they are overseas. Their families and loved ones are owed a great deal of respect and thanks as well.

Canada's men and women in uniform are called upon to travel to some of the most hostile and uninhabitable places in the world to protect the most vulnerable, to fight terrorism, and to promote Canadian values. The Canada we have today would not be this great country if it were not for the past sacrifices of the brave men and women who have worn our uniform.

I am pleased that the government was actually bringing this debate to the House because I believe it is important that we have a fulsome debate on a military deployment. That was the convention that was ingrained in this great Parliament by our previous government. When important military issues were to be undertaken, they were brought to Parliament to be debated and voted upon.

Therefore, I was initially pleased that the government was bringing the motion to the House, only to find out that, as the Liberals were presenting the motion, they had already ended the CF-18 mission. It is disingenuous at best and it is disappointing that they would break this convention that this great Parliament has set.

Canada must not be a passive player on the world stage. We must and should be a global leader in the protection of human rights and in the fight against terrorism. We must stand up for the rights of people suffering around the world and stand against those who commit horrendous and heinous acts against the most innocent in our societies.

Canadians are disappointed with their government and the steps it has taken away from the important mission against ISIS. In fact, last July, the member for Niagara Falls, previously the minister for foreign affairs, hosted an international meeting here in Canada of those nations who are contributing to the fight against ISIS.

Our then minister of foreign affairs hosted that meeting. Fast forward to Paris recently, there was another such meeting of our allies who are undertaking a mission against ISIS, but Canada was not even invited. We went from hosting the meeting to not even being invited. This seems to be an emerging trend with the current Liberal government when it comes to its foreign policy.

I find it interesting that the Prime Minister and Liberals often claim that their first act of coming to office was to propose a middle class tax cut. The fact of the matter is that it was not their first act. Their first act was for the Prime Minister to call up President Obama and say that he was withdrawing our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS. That was his first foray into international relations and international politics. It was to withdraw from the fight.

Canada must continue to play an important role in Iraq and Syria against ISIS.

Upon hearing the news of our withdrawal of the CF-18s, Jabar Yawar, chief of staff and spokesman for the Kurdish regional government’s Peshmerga ministry said, “It is bad news for us. Canada was a major partner in the coalition and it was a great help to Kurdistan”.

Canada is abandoning our allies in the region. The decision to withdraw Canada's CF-18s is nothing more than the fulfillment of an ill-conceived campaign promise. What is most troubling is that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence, nor, frankly, any member opposite has really provided an explanation as to why or how withdrawing our CF-18s is actually helpful to our international allies. The government's new course is not the best strategy to combat ISIS and it is hurting Canada's reputation on the world stage.

What is more confusing about the position the government has taken is that while the Liberals oppose the CF-18s actually carrying out any actual bombing, under the plan being put forward, Canadians and Canadian aircraft will still participate in the refuelling of planes and identifying targets for the international coalition. The Liberals want the benefits of appearing to withdraw, but still want to be in the fight as well. They cannot have it both ways.

When historians look back at how Canada and its forces contributed to the fight, I think they will find us wanting on this particular point. Withdrawing the CF-18s will serve to be a major point of contention and a disappointment going forward.

In November 2015, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum released a report that ISIS had committed genocide against Iraq's Yazidi population. It found that ISIS fighters had carried out crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes against other minorities. Why is the government choosing to turn its back in the face of such evil?

While some members across the way are hesitant to use the word genocide, that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly why Canada and its CF-18s should be part of the fight. In fact, Canadians continue to support this viewpoint. Recently, on February 6, 2016, an Angus Reid poll found that 63% of Canadians would like to see Canada continue the bombing mission. In fact, some would like to see our bombing mission even further enhanced. The Canadian public understands the importance of the fight against ISIS and of being actively involved in the CF-18 mission.

We can also be extremely proud of the men and women of the air force. Colonel Sean Boyle, who commanded the air force task force for Iraq between April and October 2015, recently confirmed that Canadian bombing missions did not lead to any civilian casualties. This speaks volumes to the skill and professionalism of our brave men and women in uniform. Why would the Liberal government want to withdraw our most effective fighter pilots instead of commending them and giving them a vote of confidence for their hard work and the skill with which they have participated in this mission thus far?

Taking our CF-18s out of this mission is a further step in reducing our standing and Canada's presence on the world stage. Much as they are doing in an effort to seek to normalize relations with Iran, the government is damaging our reputation abroad. If we are not willing to take a firm stand against nations and terrorist groups that commit horrendous acts, like ISIS, we will no longer be respected to the degree we are on the world stage.

Further, from 2012 on, our previous Conservative government committed $1 billion in humanitarian development and stabilization aid in the region. This was part of a multi-faceted approach to fighting ISIS. There was not only the military effort with the CF-18s but also humanitarian and development assistance for those on the ground.

We cannot deliver humanitarian aid if we are not providing military support. We cannot build for peace if we are not willing to fight for peace.

Canada must show that it is willing to stand up for our values and freedoms: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and association, the equality of women, and the rule of law.

Canadians understand the importance of the responsibility to protect. It is not enough to simply talk about rights and freedoms; we must be willing to defend the defenceless when called upon, not just in words but with force, when necessary. When dealing with a group as evil as ISIS, force is necessary.

I am proud to stand in the House and oppose the motion put forward by the Liberal government. Withdrawing our CF-18s at this time shows a lack of confidence, on that side of the House, in our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces. I am proud to stand with the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force and commend them on all they have done thus far in the fight. I would encourage the government to re-evaluate the proposal and leave our CF-18s in the fight.