Larry Maguire

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to the opposition day motion today, brought forward by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe. I want to thank him for his speech this morning and the work that he has done on this file, but I also want to say as I begin, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, and he will have some very encouraging words to say on this topic as well.

No Canadian would ever have thought that one year out in the Liberal's new administration the House of Commons would be debating their fundraising practices and lack of ethics, although it may not be a surprise. As we all remember, every minister was given clear instructions in their mandate letters to go as far as guaranteeing that even a perceived conflict of interest should be avoided at all costs.

Our democracy belongs to every Canadian and in that includes access to members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries, and yes, even ministers of the crown. Nowhere in our Constitution or even in the standing orders does it say there is a $1,500 entrance fee to be able to talk to those who govern our great country.

As an example of why the issue of special access to ministers should be a concern for all Canadians, we find out that those with deep pockets, vested interests, and the need to bend the ear of a Liberal cabinet minister seem to get special access, that those willing to write a large cheque get to cut the line.

I would like to take this opportunity to let the government know that I, as an elected official representing the good people of Brandon—Souris, have had to wait months and months to get a simple acknowledgement from Liberal ministers regarding a constituent's concern. I wondered what was taking all the time and attention of the ministers, and now I know. They were out soliciting donations rather than ensuring their office was responding to correspondence from members of Parliament.

The motion at hand, which we are discussing today, is more than just dealing with political fundraising. It goes into a much deeper issue of how members of the Liberal government use the power entrusted in them by the electorate and misuse their positions to fill the coffers of the Liberal Party. Watching the Liberals, it is no wonder Canadians distrust politicians. They say one thing, and in this specific case the Prime Minister put it in his mandate letters to his ministers, and then they go out and do the complete opposite.

Now this would not be the first broken promise from the government. It was just a matter of weeks after the Liberals were elected that we found out their plan to create a new tax bracket was in fact not cost neutral with their other changes to tax brackets. Liberal candidates also swore up and down that they would only run an itty-bitty $10-billion deficit. I only wish that the Liberal government was as good at managing the finances of our country and ensuring that our economy was growing as they are with arranging $1,500 pay-for-play fundraisers.

According to a recent Globe and Mail report, they are well on their way to doing a hundred of these special pay-to-play Liberal fundraisers in 2016 alone.

This is exactly why Canadians notoriously rank politicians low on the issue of trust. Almost every single day these past few weeks, we have learned of another Liberal fundraising event either being hosted in a Bay Street law office or a corporate boardroom where writing a cheque, hopefully with a couple of zeros attached, would pave the way to an intimate conversation with a minister of the crown.

Now it begs for us to wonder, where did the Liberals get the idea that it is okay to use their ministers to seek donations to pay for the operations of their Liberal headquarters?

To those who are paying close attention to this issue, the answer is easy. We only have to look down the 401 to see Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne's fantastic antics. Her government also got caught up in a lapse of ethical judgment, and now have gone so far as to draft legislation to completely ban these sorts of fundraising events.

Now I am not suggesting that members of Parliament and ministers should completely remove themselves from raising funds for their own individual campaigns. I'm simply suggesting that this Liberal government stops holding high-priced fundraisers in corporate boardrooms and Bay Street law offices, where there is a very perceived conflict of interest. I would suggest that our Liberal ministers start raising funds at spaghetti dinners or barbecues held in the backyards of their own supporters' homes. It is not appropriate whatsoever to be actively seeking large cheques from those who clearly have a vested interest in government dealings.

In my neck of the woods, it is very common for constituents to write small donations to the political party of their choice. In some circumstances, there will be a large gathering where people from all walks and backgrounds gather to raise funds for a local campaign. Our party, the Conservative Party, collects small donations from hundreds of thousands of Canadians annually. These Canadians do not want to land a government contract nor do they hope that their company will receive government largesse. They believe in our party because we stand up for those people who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules. It is these Canadians who are deeply committed to upholding the values and principles of our democracy.

I urge all Liberal members of Parliament to go back to their constituencies this weekend and ask people from their communities if they think it is right that those people writing $1,500 cheques to the Liberal Party should be able to have preferential access to ministers of the crown. They can ask farmers, who work 12 hours a day, if they think Liberal ministers should be spending so much of their time seeking donations, or they can ask small business owners if Liberal ministers should spend more time thinking of ways to grow the economy than seeking funds from the one percenters.

Perhaps before my colleagues from across the way get on a plane to go home this weekend to ask their constituents for their views, they should maybe stop and chat with Mary Dawson, the Ethics Commissioner, because she said that Canadians should be concerned about the Liberal government's pay-to-play fundraisers. She even said that these sorts of fundraisers are “unsavoury”, and she questioned whether people were getting fair access. After my Liberal colleagues are done chatting with the Ethics Commissioner, they should speak with the Commissioner of Lobbying, who said that these fundraisers create “real or apparent conflicts of interest”.

This issue is not that complex. In fact, this issue is not even ideological or partisan in nature. It is misusing the offices of power and those offices should be above any political disagreement.

I call upon my Liberal colleagues to stand up against their party brass and do what is right. They should call upon their party leaders to stop these dodgy fundraisers. As elected members of Parliament, we should not be so focused on filling the coffers of political parties. We should be focused on improving the quality of life for Canadians and, in doing so, improve the level of trust in this institution. As I said, our democracy belongs to every single Canadian. I would like to believe that we live in a country where, no matter where we are from or the amount of change we have in our pockets, it will not limit the ability to make our voices heard in the government.

Furthermore, there is no Liberal who can stand here with a straight face and say he or she is not breaking the spirit and intent of the Prime Minister's instructions when he said:

If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians. It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them. Canadians do not expect us to be perfect—they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

The Prime Minister even went as far as to say:

...you...must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties.... This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

It is abundantly clear that if the Liberal government and its ministers do not immediately end the practice of high-priced pay for access fundraisers, they will continue to be in direct contradiction of their own mandate letters. The defence of standing up every day and saying, “Everything is all right here, move along” is not acceptable. It is not fooling Canadians one bit.

Every day the Liberal ministers continue to organize and collect fundraising cheques in this manner, it only further erodes the confidence of Canadians in our political process. While dubious Liberal fundraising practices brought down a previous administration and caused a judicial commission, it is only in the Liberals' best interests to stop what they are currently doing and admit that it is wrong before the inevitable outcome of a political scandal, again.

While the government will stand up and spend its political capital on defending these practices, I can assure the Liberals it will not pay off in the long run. We have read this story before and we know how it ends. Trust me, a Liberal usually ends up in some form of political purgatory.

I call on all members of the House to vote in favour of the motion. It has been said before that we cannot legislate common sense, but I certainly hope that by shining lights on these sketchy fundraising practices, the government will call off its Liberal party bagmen, fire up the barbecue, and invite their local supporters over to their backyards for a $5 hamburger. There could be nothing more Canadian than that.

[Bob Gordon, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Gordon, a great Canadian cattleman and a neighbour who passed away earlier this year.

His passion for cattle started in 4-H near Souris, Manitoba and he became a North American recognized registered livestock breeder, his childhood dream. With his brother, Wayne, he formed Kinnaber Cattle Co. and was named “Builder of the Shorthorn Breed”. He also helped form Bar-5 Simmentals, with the Mitchell, Draper, and Thomas families.

Bob was known far and wide in the industry and showed the grand champion female at the Denver National Western Stock Show and at the Chicago International Show in the 1969 to 1971 period.

For his many accomplishments, Bob was inducted into the Canadian Agriculture Hall of Fame as well as the Manitoba Agricultural Hall of Fame, with his wife, Joyce. Due to their love of the industry, it led them to write a book, which I urge all to read, called A Cattleman's Walk Down Memory Lane.

Bob was a trailblazer and his contributions to the cattle industry will always be remembered, and that's no bull.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand to speak to Bill C-26 in the House today. It has been referred to as the Canada pension plan tax hike bill brought on by the Liberals, and that is certainly what it is.

I want to welcome back all of my colleagues after Thanksgiving. I hope they had a good break and everyone enjoyed it. I know there are many happy Conservatives giving thanks in Alberta today and I would like to announce my support for Mr. Motz as he will be coming from the Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner constituency to join us in the House very shortly.

One of my colleagues said today that the numbers to remember were 70 for the Conservatives and 26 for the carbon tax. I only go there because my colleague from Richmond Centre indicated that the carbon tax is what would kill seniors. However, that is only one thing.

Forcing tax increases on people, such as Bill C-26 would do, is not very democratic, with the government saying it is going to help seniors when, clearly, the bill would not help them for 40 years down the road. Even my colleague from Winnipeg indicated earlier that it might be his children who would benefit from this, and that is absolutely true. My grandchildren would probably benefit from it a bit, 40 years down the road, and none of them are even 20 years old yet.

That is the kind of rhetoric that comes out of bills like this that are not well thought out. It would be a tax on the individuals who are going to put up this money, and because it would be such a long time before they would ever get a payback on it, it would be decades after they retire before they would get back what they put it into it themselves.

I want to go back to what my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope said today. When people put these funds into the account, it would be a long time before they would see any benefit. They would be putting their money into a plan that, if they die early, an unfortunate circumstance, the money they have put away for all of these years would not accrue to them. It would not go to their families upon their death like in a normal pension plan or their own private savings.

I want to make it very clear that I support the public pension plan, as was questioned earlier by my colleague from Winnipeg North. We have both debated a number of these kinds of bills in the Manitoba legislature when we were both there, but this is not the way to enhance the ability of seniors to have more money in their retirement years. If it is put in place to help those who need it today, then there are many other ways of doing that to make it easier for seniors to access those funds in the near future.

What scale of support would this provide? The tax itself could end up being $2,200 a year. That would be the increased premiums people would pay. Of course, $1,100 of that would be paid by the individual and $1,100 paid by the employer. Having been an employer and knowing how the system works, it is a matching fund. I do not have a problem with that, but what it would do is two things. It would not provide the benefit right away that the government may have been targeting and it would certainly, as my colleague just finished saying, reduce people's ability to put funds into their own private pension plans, if they were able to. It would decrease the amount of money they would get back in the near term. I think the number was that it would reduce it by 7%.

It would also make it tougher for businesses to survive. This is not just a Conservative number. There was a study done. If Liberals do not believe it, they should look at Finance Canada. It is the one saying that higher CPP premiums will hurt the economy, as was also just pointed out.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business a full 70% of businesses in Canada today have indicated that they disagree with the notion that this would be just a modest little tax increase as the Liberals are saying. Actually, the Liberals do not use the word “tax”. The only one who uses that word is the environment minister on carbon.

There is a correlation here between the bills that the government is bringing forward. The government is dropping a carbon tax, which could be 11.5¢, on the same seniors whom it wants to put more money into their pension plans. It looks to me like everybody is paying and the government is taking. That is a concern.

It is ironic that the Liberal government is mandating a tax today on individuals to pay more for a benefit that would only be achievable in 40 years, when it cannot even balance its own budget today. Bigger debt hurts seniors more as well. It particularly hurts the very young who will have to pay all of this back in the future. It is a bit ironic for the Liberals to say that there will be a mandated tax and a benefit, but anyone over the age of 40 today would probably not see that benefit unless he or she lives to be 100 years old.

There are many other ways of helping seniors in the more immediate term. We did it by increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, when we were in government. The Harper government made the largest increase in the GIS in 25 years. The Liberals liked the idea because they implemented a small increase in that in their very first budget.

The Liberals also did away with the increase in the tax-free savings accounts that would have gone up to the $10,000 mark. This would have allowed many seniors to save. It may be a surprise to many Liberal members across the floor but the number of seniors who were using the TFSA was in the neighbourhood of 60%. That is a pretty clear indication that those people were doing what the present government is forcing them to do, which is saving for their own retirements. They were putting this money away so that they could use it in the future.

There are also many other ways to help seniors, whether it is through an increase in the basic personal exemption, or whether it is through a decrease in personal income tax. Those are a number of things that could be done, although the government is going the other way. It has increased taxes on small businesses. They certainly are not going to be at the level that we had announced in our election campaign. When a government is simply taxing these folks and saying it is going to be good for them, when clearly it is not, then it is not a clear direction to emulate.

A member asked the other day if we were in favour of the Canada pension plan when it was first put in place back in the sixties. Of course we were, but back then the plan was only to support other pension mechanisms. I would like to quote Judy LaMarsh in referring to the CPP, “It is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans.” Judy LaMarsh was the Liberal minister responsible for establishing the Canada pension plan in 1964. Even the Liberals felt that when the plan was set up it was only to be a supplement to the other mechanisms that were there.

I could go on with a number of other quotes, but instead I will say that 70% of employed Canadians oppose expanding the Canada pension plan, if it means a wage freeze. Over one-third of employed Canadians say that proposed increases are unaffordable, and 80% want the government to further consult before making any decisions.

I think it is very clear that there are a number of things that could be improved and could be done to help seniors. The bill does not do it and that is why I will be voting against it.

[Taxation, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, over this past constituency week, all members had a chance to return to their ridings and hear directly from Canadians what they think of the Liberal carbon tax.

It being the first week back after Thanksgiving, I feel it is appropriate to quote King Louis XIV's finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who said:

The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing.

I can report to the House that the hard-working taxpayers back home are not just hissing, they are spitting mad. The Liberal carbon tax will raise the price of everything. Rural Canadians and farm families will particularly feel the brunt of this Liberal carbon tax, as it will unduly affect their way of life. Therefore, I urge the government to go back to the drawing board and to think long and hard as to whether imposing this major tax grab, one that will cost farm families and other families across Canada thousands of dollars and put our economy at risk, is the best way to reduce greenhouse gases.

[Taxation, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent report, Canadians are now spending more on taxes than they are on food, clothing, and shelter combined.

I worry about seniors living on fixed incomes in my constituency, whether they are from Brandon, Melita, or Pilot Mound, who cannot afford any more taxes. They cannot afford increased grocery or gas bills.

Will the Liberals commit today that their carbon tax will not take one more nickel out of the pockets of seniors living on fixed incomes?

[Democratic Reform, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, last Saturday, I hosted an open house on electoral reform to hear what Canadians have to say. Let me tell members the results.

After tabulating the responses from my town hall, there was a clear majority who want a referendum, and over 800 people in my riding have now petitioned to have a vote before any change in electing MPs is implemented.

Will the Prime Minister listen to their demands and stop denying them their right to have a vote in a referendum?

[Arnold Palmer, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a great sportsman, the king of golf, Mr. Arnold Palmer. Mr. Palmer passed away last Sunday, September 25.

Golfers and fans around the world, including millions of Canadians, remember him fondly as members of “Arnie's Army”.

Mr. Palmer's first victory on the Professional Golf Association Tour was in Toronto in 1955, winning the Canadian open. Twenty-five years later, his last PGA win was another Canadian open in Edmonton. These were just two of his 62 PGA and 92 total career victories, which included seven majors and six Canada cups.

He is a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame and the PGA of America Golf Hall of Fame.

His business acumen as president of Arnold Palmer Enterprises succeeded in the design and building of hundreds of golf courses worldwide, a golf clothing line, clubs, and even the “Arnold Palmer”, a popular drink mixture of lemonade and iced tea, to name a few.

He was the original chair of the Golf Channel, providing great exposure of the game, and his philanthropic efforts were tremendous.

Our condolences to his family, friends and fans. May he rest with many eagles.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to government funding for the constituency of Brandon—Souris for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date on which funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to Voter Information Cards distributed by Elections Canada during the 2015 federal election: (a) how many cards were printed; (b) how many cards were distributed; (c) how many cards distributed to individuals whose information was later revised; (d) how many cards were distributed to individuals who were ineligible to cast a ballot; (e) of the individuals identified in (d), how many of the were ineligible to vote due to (i) non-citizenship, (ii) death, (iii) age, (iv) other reason; (f) how many cards were returned as undeliverable; (g) how many cards were used by individuals as primary identification at the polls; (h) what methodology was used to determine the responses in (a) through (g); (i) what process is used by Elections Canada to determine which individuals are eligible to receive a card; (j) what security features were included on each card; (k) what features were included on the card to ensure that any individual using the card as a means of identification is the person listed on the card; (l) how many individuals who received a card advised Elections Canada of incorrect information listed on the card; (m) how many cards were mailed to addresses where all or part of the voter's name was unavailable; (n) how many cards were sent to “occupant”, “tenant”, or any other generic term; and (o) what is the general Canada Post delivery error rate for addresses ad mail and first class mail?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the ongoing Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus outbreak and scientific studies carried out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what are the details of the study which explicitly outlined the emergency regulatory protocols and measures with respect to washing hog transport trailers; and (b) what factors contributed to the statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on June 2, 2016, that emergency regulatory protocols and measures with respect to washing hog transport trailers were no longer needed in Manitoba?