Larry Maguire

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, obviously we disagree in regard to the ethics of the finance minister, but he has had a lot of experience in government. He has a little more than I have in regard to the number of years he was in the Manitoba legislature. When I was there, he was one of two members in the Liberal Party, so I understand that he is voluminous in regard to speaking in the chamber.

He had an opportunity to do that in Manitoba over the years when I was there because spoke to a lot of bills as an opposition member. We have to remind ourselves that for 22 or 23 years he has been a member in Parliament and only two of those have been in government. He has a lot of experience in opposition and I look forward to the day when he is over here again. That might happen in two years.

The member talked in his opening remarks about the real world. The real world is that the government has huge deficits and Liberals are adding to the debt. They are making the costs of food, clothing, and heating family homes higher. They have broken about 50 promises that they tried to make and they have only been in government for two years.

I wonder if he can articulate to the people of Canada why we would not be working with the NDP and all Canadians on such an important issue as the ethics of one, if not two, of the top people in government today.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member for Winnipeg North raised that issue, because I have the utmost confidence in the Ethics Commissioner's office. I do not have any confidence in Minister of Finance's ethics in regard to what I talked about in my speech today, including the things he has already paid a fine for.

One thing about Stephen Harper we can be sure about is that he left a surplus for the Canadian public, and the Liberal government is running $30 billion deficits every year. The Liberals never talk about the fact that he reduced the debt, never mind the deficit by $30 billion in his first two years in government, before the 2008 recession hit.

The member can stand up and talk about rules all he wants, but what about accountability? If he wants to talk about the opposition working together, then, yes, we are. Why would we not? This is one of the most unethical situations I have ever seen in government, and I have been in it for 17 or 18 years now. I feel strongly that we are not only working together as the opposition, but are working with Canadians.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The government wants to talk about sunny ways, but there is a huge cloud hanging over the whole government these days.

Canadians know about it, and we hear about it every day in phone calls, emails, and messages from them. Maybe it will turn into a thunderstorm. There have been a lot of lightning strikes over there in regard to some of the efforts by the minister to defuse some of the obvious things I cited today, which he has been charged with, found guilty of, and paid a fine for.

There is a huge vacuous absence of policy by the government now, which is trying to do things that will happen some decades down the road. It is even the case in the debate today. I was listening to it in my office before I came to give my speech. I heard my hon. colleague from York—Simcoe trying to bring some relevance to the House in response to some of the speeches by the Liberals trying to defend the minister today. The minister's name, or the whole situation, never even entered into the discussion of the Liberals. It proves they are embarrassed by this situation the finance minister has gotten them into. It is also a fact that he is not even able to honest with his own Prime Minister.

As I said in my speech, these are the two most important people in government. Who can Canadians trust?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Trust is earned when actions meet words. It is unfortunate that today we are here in the House having to call out the finance minister for breaking the trust of Canadians.

The Prime Minister and the finance minister arguably are the two most important, powerful officials in government. We as parliamentarians and, more important, Canadians must be able to trust that they will act in the public interest rather than in their own private interest. As the Prime Minister has said “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Therefore, let us lift up the rug, throw open the doors, and reveal what is in all those numbered companies the finance minister has set up in various provinces.

The Liberals clearly are not very comfortable talking about this topic. Either at town halls or through correspondence and phone calls, they have had to defend the bad life decisions the minister has made.

For folks at home wondering why we are having this debate, it is because Canada is not a backward country where elected officials get to live off the largesse of the office they hold. When the actions of a minister of the crown are in dispute, the minister has a moral duty to provide the information needed to uphold the trust bestowed unto him or her by Canadians, but also to the overall institution.

Parliament is bigger than any one minister. Regardless of one's self-appointed importance, the reputation of all of us is at risk due to the mistakes of one individual, particularly when the circumstances of the incident are as serious as this. Politicians should not personally benefit from the office they hold. Ministers of the crown are fairly compensated for the work they do on behalf of Canadians. They do not need to set up numbered companies that are designed in such a manner as to avoid giving up control of their assets.

We are here because the Minister of Finance did not live up to his mandate letter. To quote the mandate letter from the Prime Minister, it said the following:

...you.... must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

We are here because the minister thought, in some twisted world, that he could have his cake and eat it too. His actions in this ethical quagmire do not live up to the standards to which ministers of the crown should aspire. The Minister of Finance has clearly broken the spirit of the conflict of interest rules. There is no ambiguity about that. He said that he was going to put his assets in a blind trust, but conveniently did not. Regardless of whatever lame excuse or spin the government tries to use today to defend the minister, it does not pass the smell test. No one is buying it.

His approvals ratings have dramatically dropped and the Liberals' narrative of fighting for the middle class is not even believed on the pages of the Toronto Star anymore. We know a Liberal minister is in trouble when the Toronto Star starts criticizing his or her behaviour.

This bad news is taking a toll on the minister's public approval. According to a new poll, he is now the most negatively received member of the Prime Minister's cabinet. Forty-six per cent of those who knew of him gave the finance minister the thumbs down, while 23% said that he had done a good job in his position so far.

For the benefit of all members, those numbers are even lower than President Trump's approval in the United States. Furthermore, if the finance minister continues to drag the government down with him, he will soon find himself joining his former colleagues John McCallum and Stéphane Dion doing the embassy cocktail circuit with the prefix “His Excellency” added to his to business card.

That is where we find ourselves today. The ethical pyramid that has been constructed has come crashing down and the Minister of Finance has no one to blame for this but himself. Time and again, he has avoided doing the right thing, which is, for a start, to apologize.

For two years, the finance minister held shares worth approximately $20 million in Morneau Shepell, a company he regulates. He held these shares outside of a blind trust, despite his own colleagues believing his shares were in a blind trust.

Right after being sworn in as finance minister he spoke to the CBC. It was in that interview where he said, “I've resigned my position as chair of the firm that I was chair of before. I expect that all my assets will go into a blind trust.” Well, it turns out that this did not happen. His assets were not placed in a blind trust, but were set up in an elaborate way that still allowed him to control them in a numbered company in Alberta. Only after it was revealed that the finance minister was not holding his assets in a blind trust did he acknowledge his wrongdoing and agree to sell those assets. He continues to hold several numbered companies, but the assets held within those companies are not publicly known.

While he held these shares, the finance minister also introduced Bill C-27, which would create targeted benefit pension plans. We also know that benefit pension plans are a highly specialized product offered by Morneau Shepell. In this regard, it has just been announced that the Ethics Commissioner has launched an investigation into the minister's involvement with Bill C-27, particularly as his shares in Morneau Shepell rose in value after the legislation was announced.

These are the facts that the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence just called “tissues of nonsense”. These costly mistakes have tarnished the minister's reputation and, from media reports, will end up costing him roughly $5 million dollars after his assets are divested.

For someone who is as educated and successful as he is, it boggles the mind how he could have thought his actions were ethical. Even the most casual political observer would have recognized that the Minister of Finance should not have control over his assets, which would surely be impacted by the decisions he would make in office.

In this debate today we will ask the finance minister to reveal all of the assets he has bought, sold, or held within all of his private companies or trust funds since being sworn in. We are calling for this information to be revealed to determine if his financial interests have conflicted with his public duties.

Now the Liberals may try to shrug this off and pretend this debate is not happening. In fact, I suspect that many will not even try to defend the finance minister's ethical lapses. They know they cannot defend the indefensible. They can bob and weave during question period and avoid answering the tough questions, but if they tried for one moment to do this with their constituents back home, the latters' wrath and fury would surely be quick to follow.

Today, many members will lay out the argument why this motion should pass. Members will hear why the Minister of Finance should do the right thing and begin the process of revealing what he has bought and sold since he became the finance minister. Then and only then can we be sure that he did not personally financially gain from the decisions he has made while in office.

To my friends in the Liberal Party, this is their chance to stand up and demand better from those who govern us. Regardless of political stripe, I think we can all admit that the Minister of Finance has been less than forthcoming with Canadians. If the shoes were on the other feet, many of the MPs who sit across from us today would be in an uproar over what has transpired over these past two years. From secret villas to numbered companies to legislation that will financially benefit the minister's bank account, this paints a very troubling picture.

I call on every MP to demand better. Demand that the Prime Minister be held to his word. Demand that ministers be held to a higher standard than finding a loophole and then proclaiming their innocence.

Canadians are smarter than to fall for the claptrap that is far too often peddled. We know in our guts that what has become known is not only morally unacceptable, but also very clearly in breach of the law. Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.

The very least the finance minister could do is to be transparent and forthcoming with Canadians.

[Brandon Marlins, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Brandon Marlins team, the management, and players from their 1999 to 2008 seasons for being chosen to be inducted into the Manitoba Baseball Hall of Fame, on June 2 next summer, in Morden, Manitoba.

The Marlins were assembled in 1995 by a late great athlete, Neil Andrews, who, with the help of many others, recruited a great group of athletes who had played together since they were 10 or 11 years old.

With the entry of the Marlins into the league, it breathed new life into Brandon's baseball community and fans were privileged to watch some of the most exciting baseball games in league history.

It goes without saying that the Marlins are champions. The players went on to win the Manitoba Senior Baseball League title in 1999 and proceeded to win again in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2008, among other accomplishments.

I know many of the players personally and they are true leaders on and off the field. I can think of no greater honour than to recognize these gentlemen being inducted into the Manitoba Baseball Hall of Fame so their accomplishments will be remembered for generations to come.

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, of course, that is exactly what I am speaking of today. After listening to the people at the five town hall meetings and other events I attended throughout the summer in my riding, I felt it necessary to offer the plan that I did.

I even sent a letter to the parliamentary budget officer back in June, before the House rose for the summer, requesting all of the information around Bill C-45 and the enforcement bill, Bill C-46. I had many questions about how much money would be spent on enforcement, what would be needed for administration, and how it would be done. I had two pages of questions. We got back a reply from the parliamentary budget office that basically said that the government had the information but had not given it to them, and thus they could give none to me.

I find that atrocious. If the money to be made in this process is broadcast, and then the government is so ashamed of the results that it cannot even put out there what it will cost, including administratively, it shows that the government does not know what those costs are, that this process has been done too quickly without the necessary detail behind it, just like the government has done with its small business tax program.

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern, but it is the biggest oxymoron I have ever heard. They obviously have not listened to what the Canadian public has said, and they are the ones bringing forward the licensing of recreational marijuana.

Why the rush? If they need more time, they have lots of it. They could do that and still put in place the proper analysis and training that police forces across Canada have asked for. The medical association has given them that background as well.

There are many reasons to take more time, such as those relayed by the nursing association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which are going to have all of these costs dumped on them. This government is not going to make any money out of this process. In spite of that, the Liberals are trying to suggest to the public that they need this money to bail themselves out of their huge debts. The government is not going to make a cent on this because it will all be used up in enforcement and administration.

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today the House deals with one of the largest changes regarding controlled substances in my lifetime. Throughout the debate on the larger issue of legalizing recreational marijuana, I have discovered that the issue is not as black and white as some members have put forward in their arguments. I agree with many of the points my colleague from Markham—Unionville raised. However, I said that it is not as black and white, and I will give an example. Every time the Liberal MPs talk about how marijuana legalization would keep the substance out of the hands of youth, it is asinine. For anyone to think that youth currently do not have ready access to illegal marijuana is also rather absurd. I am well aware that Canada has some of the highest rates of adolescent marijuana consumption in the world. It is available far too often in our high schools and I have heard horrible stories of how marijuana consumption has led to disastrous life decisions.

This can also be said of alcohol. It can also be said of crystal meth, fentanyl, and cocaine. I do not for a moment believe that marijuana is in the same column as the illegal substances I just referenced, and it is not my intention to degrade those who consume marijuana for recreational purposes. My intent is to emphasize that we parliamentarians should wade very carefully into legalization of recreational marijuana, which would soon allow every household in Canada to grow four plants.

I have carefully reviewed many of the submissions to the health committee, such as by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses' Association, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These are just a handful of the over 185 briefs tabled with committee members, and in many respects the concerns these well-respected organizations put forward were almost identical to those voiced by my constituents during the five town halls I hosted on this topic this summer.

The best way to describe Bill C-45 is by quoting a Brandon Sun article published the morning after one of our town halls. I can assure those who think the Brandon Sun is under the umbrella of Postmedia that it is not. The article stated, “If a consensus could be drawn from a wide-ranging town hall in Brandon about the proposed legalization of marijuana, it’s an acknowledgement the legislation is flawed.”

I fully agree with what the article said. That is why I submitted a brief not only to the justice and health ministers, but also to the entire committee tasked with studying this legislation. It was not surprising, but still unfortunate, to report that I received a boiler-plate response from the Minister of Justice that did not even acknowledge the recommendations I put forward. If a duly elected member of Parliament cannot even get the correspondence team in the Minister of Justice's office to go above and beyond just copying and pasting a response, it begs the question of whether the current government has any intention of listening to concerned Canadians.

For a government that pretends it listens, the only way to get its members to back down from a proposal is for thousands upon thousands of angry taxpayers to show up en masse at town halls and write some of the funniest tweets I have ever read. For example, during the taxpayers' revolt this summer, many farmers took pictures of themselves sitting in their combines while harvesting, referring to them as their tax shelters.

I ask the government not only to implement my recommended change to push back the bringing-into-force date of Bill C-45 to 2019, but also that its members listen to the brief by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which stated, “Canadian police services will not be equipped to provide officers with the training and resources necessary to enforce the new regime within the existing contemplated timeframe,” or to the Canadian Medical Association, which recommended a comprehensive public health strategy with a health education component before Bill C-45 is implemented.

If the government thinks that police services, the medical community, and our education system will be ready within the next six months, and that municipalities and provinces will be fully prepared for July 1, I would humbly remind it on its own part, two years later, it still cannot accurately pay public service employees.

It is sad to say, but the government's credibility in implementing and executing effective policies within a reasonable time frame is not that believable. My hon. colleagues across the way have essentially ignored the plea by provinces and municipalities for more time to properly prepare for the government's politically driven July 1 deadline.

Not a single member of this House has any idea what the rules will be in their communities, because their municipal governments have yet to determine what they will be. It will cost serious money for municipal governments to properly train their law enforcement and bylaw officers, and even more, they will not receive adequate financial assistance to do so. They will be stuck with all of the headaches, while the Prime Minister, on Canada Day, will proclaim that marijuana is now legal.

To expand on my recommendations to the government, the majority of my constituents believe that the federal government should not look to marijuana as a cash cow, but should provide a significant portion of the federal taxes it collects from marijuana directly to municipalities in the same manner as it does with the gas tax fund.

For any of my colleagues who believe that police and law enforcement agencies will see cost savings from the legalization of recreational marijuana, it would be naive at best to think that such a highly regulated, controlled substance that will have even more strings attached to it than alcohol will somehow free up their time. Any time a government has decided to legislate, regulate, and control something, I have failed to see the resulting cost savings.

Regardless of the flaws of this piece of legislation, there is still no overall consensus among my constituents that marijuana should be legalized for recreational use. There were many questions about the effects on someone's cognitive abilities and the lack of general education about its long-term impacts.

While we debate this legislation and put a heavy emphasis on educating our youth, we must not forget that millions of middle-aged adults have next to zero experience with recreational marijuana and, therefore, that any educational programs must include this demographic.

It is absolutely imperative that the legalization of recreational marijuana not be rushed until the various law enforcement agencies, provinces, and municipalities are fully prepared.

I urge the government to rethink how the tax revenues will be distributed to those who will have to absorb many of the costs of regulating and policing marijuana use. I ask the federal government to heed the advice of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities not to move forward with this legislation until it receives further direction from its municipal partners.

In closing, I am under no illusion that the government has any intention of listening to the concerns of the good people of Brandon—Souris. It would be an understatement to say that I have hesitations regarding the legalization of recreational marijuana. Regardless of my personal trepidations, it is clear that the country is not ready for the July 1, 2018 implementation date. It is my hope that even if the government ignores every other concern or recommendation put forward, either by me or stakeholders, that it at the very least would push back the bringing-into-force date to allow more time to properly prepare for legalization.

With that I will finish my remarks and urge my Liberal colleagues to break ranks with their whip and the government to listen to its local law enforcement agencies, provinces, and municipalities to do the right thing.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments in regard to the program tonight, as well as in regard to my question.

I am a bit surprised that the Liberals do not have an answer for this simple question about this particular lake right now. I just want the member to know that there are other worthwhile projects that are being ignored.

The Killarney Lake action committee is now ready to apply for funding to install an aeration field to improve the water quality and combat the toxic blue-green algae that is plaguing its lake.

Will the parliamentary secretary commit today to allow the Killarney Lake action committee to apply for funding for an aeration field that has the potential of dramatically improving the quality of the water in Killarney Lake?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that last Friday, I raised the question of worthwhile projects not being allowed to apply for funding under the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. The reason I asked the question is that for the past year, not a single new funding application has been accepted. I asked the government if it would open the program for funding proposals, such as the Killarney Lake aeration field project, and unfortunately, I did not receive an answer.

The question is not about whether there is money for the program, as I understand that the department has allocated $10 million for this fiscal year and $8 million for the next fiscal year. When determining if any of those dollars were available, my office contacted DFO, and it said the money had all been allocated for this year, even though no call for proposals was released.

I do not know if this is true, because when I searched the government's news release website, I thought it would be teeming with information on all the projects that had been allocated funding under this program, but I was surprised to find only one project listed.

l thought it must be an oversight that the Government of Canada did not post any news releases on the website. The next logical step was to go to Google to maybe discover any local stories over the past two years. I found only two more projects. After searching the government's news release website, searching Google, looking for a full list of projects on DFO's website, and even asking the Library of Parliament to get involved, I am no closer to finding out how the government has allocated two years' worth of money and is refusing to accept any new proposals.

I am certain the parliamentary secretary will laud the success of the program, and I hope he does, because it was designed by none other than a Conservative MP, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. When I say designed, I literally mean the member was involved in every aspect of the program and almost single-handedly spearheaded this initiative.

There is one specific element of the program I want to highlight. It is that it was specifically created to fund small and medium-sized projects of $20,000 to $100,000. With that evidence in hand, I would suspect that there would be hundreds of projects that would have been allocated the $10 million from last year and the $20 million found in the department's budget this year.

Taking the government at its word that all the monies have been allocated for the multi-year projects, there is little evidence to suggest what it is being spent on. Second, if the government has strayed from the original intent of the program, to support smaller projects put forward by local fishing groups, healthy lake groups, and conservation districts, is it not forgetting why the program was originally put in place?

The government has millions of dollars for a number of different projects, including rinks and Stanley Cup tributes. Could it not open the program for worthwhile initiatives like the Killarney Lake aeration field for this fiscal year?

Now that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries has had a full weekend to prepare for this question, it is my sincere hope tonight that I could get a clear answer. My question is simple. Will the government allow funding proposals, such as the proposed aeration for Killarney Lake, to be accepted for this fiscal year?