Earl Dreeshen

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, specifically on the issue of political financing.

Like the member opposite who just spoke, I have a great sense of pride when it comes to speaking about Canada's political financing and its corresponding election laws, which have kept big business and unions out of government decision-making. Of course, individual donors were the bedrock of Canadian politics.

I had the opportunity a number of years ago, in Panama City, during a Summit of the Americas, with ParlAmericas, to do a presentation having to do with transparency in politics. In that particular discussion, one of the things I spoke of was the lack of dollars from business and the lack of dollars from the unions and that the reality is that anyone can come into the House of Commons without having a lot of money behind them. When we go into Central America and talk about election financing there, we realize that most people are looking at how many dollars are spent on U.S. elections and the constant campaigning that takes place there.

The difference between how Canada conducts itself and how some of the other countries conduct themselves is something they felt was rather intriguing. I was a former teacher, and the amount of money we could spend would probably be about the same amount as my salary for the year. That put it in perspective so that people could understand exactly how much involvement there is and how the community could stay associated with what is done in a political campaign. For that I felt that as Canadians, we could be extremely proud.

However, here we are today specifically debating the bill before us, because Liberal elites got caught organizing unethical activities, which proved that their promise of openness and accountability to Canadians was just a sham. The Prime Minister, throughout his campaign, said that the Liberals were going to do things differently; that they would govern with openness and transparency; and that, after a juvenile statement that budgets would balance themselves, they would grow our economy from the heart out. They made a campaign promise of small, temporary, $10-billion deficits and a return to balanced budgets in a few years. We now see what that heart is made of. We are specifically debating Bill C-50 today because the Liberals could not keep their promise of openness and accountability to Canadians.

The member for Papineau was elected in 2008, at the same time I was, and sat way back on the Liberal benches. Very few people heard much of him in those days. Some perhaps thought him a bit aloof, with maybe his head in the clouds as a young guy just trying to find himself. However, the reality was that he was often out on the road, similar to what he is doing in his present position, but on a professional, paid speaking circuit. That in itself is of no concern to me, but the media report from January 16, 2014, in the Ottawa Citizen indicated that he was forced to repay money that had been inappropriately charged to his member's operational budget during his off time as an MP. This went way back to 2009 and 2010.

I know that such expenses arise for many of us on reimbursed expenses. I remember a situation of my own where a community advertisement of an event happened to include a commentary later thanking all the sponsors for the event. Well, we know what the word “sponsor” means to everyone. Therefore, when it was looked at, the answer was no, we are not paying for that. There was one person who ended up paying for that, and it was me, because I wrote the cheque. It happens, and it happens to everyone. When they realize that there is a problem, they go back and correct it.

It was also the case for the member for Papineau. He had received $217,000 in speaking fees as an opposition MP, which is a number curiously familiar to a number we use right now. A mistake was made, and he repaid the expenses that were associated with that type of activity. This is the same type of thing that many of his cabinet ministers have had to do as they have reached into their pockets to make things right.

Now the Prime Minister, after two years, has broken federal ethics laws; has a Minister of Finance embroiled in transparency and ethics scandals; and is touting economic progress, which is solely related to a buoyant U.S. economy and is poised, due to our regulatory burdens and unwise policies, to come crashing back down. This is even before the generational malaise that will affect us all because of the Liberal culture of uncontrolled deficit spending.

Again, we are here today talking about integrity and respect for the Canadian taxpayer and opening up the reality of the Liberals' promise of openness and transparency.

After the election, fresh from their sunny-ways glow, the Prime Minister publicly displayed the mandate letters to his ministers in which he clearly said that his cabinet ministers should hold themselves to a higher standard and that there should be no undue influence and no perception, real or otherwise, of any political interference. Not even halfway through their mandate, the Liberals were caught organizing cash-for-access events for Liberal insiders and deep-pocketed lobbyists. The Prime Minister and his senior ministers were effectively raising millions dollars for the Liberal coffers at private fundraisers where donors had access to government ministers.

This is not what Canadians see as ethical. The Liberals' favourite defence seems to be, “What could be wrong with that? It is what we Liberals have always done.”

We need to establish some very clear distinctions. Political fundraising is part of our political process. Everyday Canadians donate to political parties or political candidates because they believe in what those parties or candidates stand for. Donating to the party or candidates of their choice is their way of supporting the activities of those parties or those candidates, and they are doing so out of pure conviction. On the campaign trail, political party leaders and candidates are expected to hold fundraisers, and people buy tickets to come to those fundraisers. That is part of what makes our great democratic system so good here in Canada.

Here is the thing. As the government, the Liberals are going to rewrite legislation with the pretence of openness and transparency. They hope it will deflect from their bad behaviour and put the onus on other politicians that have followed the normal rules, with the hope that they will trip up, so that these types of negative stories about them will be deflected somewhere else. This is very, very sneaky. This, at its very core, is unethical influence. Then again, what else can we expect from a Prime Minister who holds the record of being the first Prime Minister in Canadian history to violate federal ethics laws? Caught red-handed, the Liberals are now trying to save face.

The question many people have with respect to this bill is whether Bill C-50 would change anything. Unfortunately, it would not. This bill would not stop the cash-for-access fundraisers. In fact, it would mandate that the Liberals publicize such events ahead of time, but reporting such events ahead of time would not make them transparent. Bill C-50, despite making the events public knowledge, would not stop cash for access. The Prime Minister and his ministers could still be at events. The staff of cabinet ministers could be at events without it even being disclosed under Bill C-50. There would be no transparency about a senior government official being at an event, only people who were candidates or party leaders or cabinet ministers.

The bill would not stop cash for access. It would not stop the influence of big money in Canadian politics. What this bill would do is formalize and institute a system in which the richest, most connected individuals would have undue influence on the reins of power in Canadian politics.

The Liberals are legitimizing their unethical schemes. This bill would not address the Prime Minister's promise of openness and accountability, and it would not deter undue influence over government decision-making.

My final thoughts are that Canadians believe that a prime minister should not need a bill to tell him what is right or wrong. The Prime Minister himself can stop this practice of letting the richest and most connected Canadians influence government. If the Prime Minister wanted to end cash for access, all he ever had to do was stop having these fundraisers. It does not take legislation to do what is right.

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

With regard to all expenditures on Management Consulting (Treasury Board Object Codes 048 and 0491) by Employment and Social Development Canada, since January 1, 2017: what are the details of all expenditures including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number?

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

With regard to Service Canada’s national in-person service delivery network, for each Service Canada Centre: (a) how many full-time employees (FTEs) were there on December 1, 2016; (b) how many FTEs were there on December 1, 2017; and (c) which offices have changed their hours of service, and for each office that has changed its hours of service, what are the new hours?

[Town of Penhold, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday my family and I attended the inauguration of the chain of command for the Town of Penhold, where a magnificent ceremonial chain and pendants were presented to Mayor Michael Yargeau and his council by Her Honour Lieutenant Governor Lois Mitchell and benefactor Stewart Ford. Her Honour and Mr. Ford then participated in the presentation of the Ford Family Scholarship endowment to Penhold Crossing Secondary School.

These generous gifts add to a long list of benevolent acts that Stewart and Eileen Ford have bestowed upon their beloved Penhold. In his humble address, Stewart said, “Eileen and I believe there is no finer investment for any community than putting knowledge into the minds of scholars. For Penhold Crossing Secondary School students, we have enlarged the means for them to do so.” He closed his address by quoting Sir Winston Churchill, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.”

I thank Stewart and Eileen for all that they give.

[Ray Reckseidler Appreciation Night, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 9, my wife Judy and I were honoured to attend the Ray Reckseidler Appreciation Night in Delburne, as Ray's community showed its gratitude for his 31 years of service.

Both my professional career as a teacher and my lifelong political journey were forged from Ray's example, advice, and mentorship. This is something I will always cherish. I long admired Ray's skills at listening to those searching for a community voice, creating a strong business environment in his community so social issues could be realized, and working within a budget, as mayor, so tax dollars were respected.

On behalf of the Delburne community, central Alberta, and indeed a grateful nation, I want to thank Ray Reckseidler for his 31 years of community service. I also want to thank his wife, Sheila for her service as the strong supportive partner of this hard-working and dedicated politician, a calling that is seldom recognized.

From the Dreeshen family to the Reckseidler family, I thank them for being our friends.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our committee was tasked with studying the trade priorities of Canadians, but recommendations from certain stakeholders were not reflected in the final report. The Conservative members of the Standing Committee on International Trade would like to offer this supplementary opinion, which includes testimony given by various stakeholders whose recommendations seem to have been overlooked.

We have included recommendations based on the evidence presented by various witnesses and stakeholders, and we encourage the Liberal government and the Minister of International Trade to read these recommendations and to actually listen to the trade priorities of all Canadians.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about how certain ministers are being paid who perhaps should not be paid. The concern might be that if the Liberals are trying to adjust that, they would have to deal with the Phoenix pay system. I wonder if perhaps you might be able to enlighten us about what the challenges might be for those particular ministers.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I heard the member say was that the Conservatives had been forced into making major changes, because they were found in contempt. I have a couple of points. Anyone who was here understood the procedure that had taken place. It was presented to all the committees. We were in a minority government, and basically, the opposition members simply said that they thought the Conservatives were in contempt, so they were going to send it back to the House to have a discussion. Of course, it had to wait two years until they were ready to defeat the minority government. If members recall, the Canadian public was the final arbiter on the shenanigans taking place at that time.

More to the point, the member and many people seem to have forgotten the types of things the Conservatives did, including better public access to information, next-generation open data, the modernization of the Access to Information Act, the open-government licence, and all the other things that were done. Yes, they are building upon all the CPC initiatives. Unfortunately, they are going back and doing the draconian thing by talking about what might happen in ministers' offices and so on, but we are not 100% sure if that is ever going to come out to the public.

I wonder if the member has any comments about those particular items.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister an opportunity to clarify so he does not go on a list of other ministers who have said things that they then have had to retract. He mentioned that nothing had happened in 34 years. Because of the types of things that happened in previous Liberal governments, our government immediately presented the Federal Accountability Act. It strengthened the role of the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner. It banned secret donations to political candidates. It provided real whistleblower protection. It strengthened public access to information. He seems to have forgotten this. He says that nothing has happened in 34 years.

He also seems to have forgotten, as an answer to one of my colleague's questions earlier, about why that had to happen. Perhaps he could mention the things that occurred so we do not have to go back over his words to see exactly how accurate they are.

[Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. I applaud the member for Malpeque, whom I have known for a number of years, for making sure the bill could come to this House.

Earlier this morning as the parade came in, I had a chance, as I always do, to look at this beautiful place and to think of all the history that is part of this building. Then I think back to Charlottetown. My wife's family came from Charlottetown, as a matter of fact, just on Grafton Street, and when the Fathers of Confederation were there, getting together and speaking, her family was there. They lived in the community. I had a great opportunity, therefore, to have that reflection. Of course, going to Charlottetown, as we do on occasion, we walk the stairs and have a chance to see just where Canada really took root. For us to be able to speak about this, in this place, and at third reading, it makes me feel very good about the history.

As the member for Malpeque mentioned, it is really a story of Canadian families. My wife's family, the Moore family, could have stayed in Charlottetown in 1892. They lived in a very nice place, but instead decided to come west as surveyors, to look at our vast country and see the kinds of things that were there. Then another 10 years later, when they had an opportunity to come to Alberta, they brought the whole family. My wife's father was one year old when they came in 1903. They became Albertans. Our family was there before Alberta was part of this great Confederation. Therefore, we have this bond between Charlottetown and Alberta. When we think about the importance of our entire country, it is so important that we are able to look at the families and relationships that exist there.

We had a chance to take my wife's father back to Charlottetown. This was probably in the mid-80s. He had not been there, but we did have a chance to look at the house. In the picture we had on the wall, a particular tree was about a two-inch diameter. When we were there, it took four of us to girth the thing. We can see a lot of things have happened there, but a lot of things have happened in the country as well. They are things we should be proud of, and we should recognize the strength there was in the people who decided this was something important to them.

My own family had gone to the U.S. They had come from Germany and gone to the U.S. in 1870. That was right after the American Civil War. The stress and situations that occurred there had them come to Alberta, as well, in 1903. There has been this great bond and this mixing we have in society, and it is because of families. When they came to Alberta, they started off first selling draught horses, because that was the power of the day. They then went into saddle horses, because that became the next commerce associated with it. Then they went into cattle, and finally into grain. The member for Malpeque and I have had many discussions on the grain side of things. I know our discussions on the Canadian Wheat Board go back a way, and we engaged in a lot of discussion there.

However, it is about people trying to do the best for their community and making sure they prosper, and it all happened because of people getting together and recognizing the concerns we had as a country back in those days. I am proud of that aspect of it.

Do we have things that we need to look at for the future? Yes. Should we spend all our time worrying about where we were 150 years ago? Let us think about it and let us recognize the significance. However, let us also think of the fact that Canada is the best country in the world and that is because of the people who brought us all together, and we continue to work so well together.

It is important for us to realize that the mistakes and issues that happened have built our character as a nation. We should all be proud of that. Unfortunately, we spend too much time going back, saying we could have been so much better if we had just done this or that. Where else would we rather be than here? We should all be proud of that.

I understand that these are the stories of Canadians, the stories of the distress. Look at what happened during the American Civil War. We were able to move from there. Look at the concerns and the reasons why our nation came about and why the discussions took place. That also is critical. It is extremely important we look at those aspects of it.

It has been a melting pot for nations around the world, as we come here, work together and look at our strengths. We want to ensure we maintain that. There is a Canadian identity and it is a result of the people who have been in this place over the last 150 years. This is a House of Commons and, as I have always told people, we are the common people. The moment we think we are above that is the time we should not be here. We reflect everybody in the country. I am so proud we can continuously say that Canada is the best place in the world.