Larry Miller

[Groundhog Day, January 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker,

Once again on Friday February 2nd
Wee Wiarton Willy will be beckoned.

It will be his very first prediction
Done with fervour & conviction

While he's a rookie in groundhog circles
He'll be far more famous than Steve Urkel

He'll talk to Mayor Janice in groundhogese
And do it all with a glamourous ease

Take Alberta's brown coated Balzac Billy
His prediction skills make him look silly

Or Nova Scotia's Shubenacadie Sam
Whose prediction record is simply a sham
And Pennsylvania's Puxatawney Phil
He can't hold a carrot to our “Wee Will”
I will be there when he comes out of his cage
I'm convinced Wee Wiarton Willie will be the new rage
With his glistening white fur coat
He will instill in Wiartonians eternal hope
When he declares that beautiful thing
There's only 6 more weeks until spring

[Child Health Protection Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, at this time of the year, I want to wish you, all of the pages, staff, and colleagues a very merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous 2018.

It is a pleasure to speak today to Bill S-228. While the intent of the bill is something we should all support, and I certainly do, more than one member has talked about its unintended consequences. I met today with members of Canada Soccer and Sports Matters, who are very concerned about programs. Everyone is very aware of the Timbits hockey and soccer programs and a number of others. These could be in severe jeopardy of not complying with this bill if the regulations are not done right. That is a concern.

[Salaries Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Thornhill for a great question and his obvious understanding of the issue.

I mentioned the project that was approved under the auspices of northern Ontario but actually benefited a company in southern Ontario, in Mississauga—Malton. It does not matter how the letters are moved around on that, it all adds up and spells “inappropriate”.

Mr. Speaker, you come from northern Ontario and you know how important this kind of funding is in rural, isolated, northern communities. When we are trying to help these municipalities, the last thing we would do is give that kind of project to somebody nowhere near the area. It just smells a little when it comes from the minister's own riding.

I know the minister, and I have a lot of respect for him. However, if he and I were standing and talking in the House, even he would say this does not look good. I would call it downright inappropriate.

[Salaries Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my disoriented colleague across the way for his question.

The bottom line here is that, if he wants to talk about accountability, openness, and all of that, which was in his question, all he has to do is be present every day from 2:15 to 3:00 in the House. He will find out all about that. That is what is unofficially known as “non-answer period”.

Maybe before he stands up and makes a statement as he just did, he could view or sit in on that, and shake his head like the rest of us when no questions are answered. The finance minister has been asked a number of questions in this House. He never answered them when he was present, and now he just does not come to the House.

[Salaries Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a big task to fill the shoes of my colleague who just spoke. He obviously has a great grasp of the effects of this bill.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act. This bill has been touted by many members across the way as just a simple bill that must be passed as quickly as possible. They would like members of this House to believe that there is nothing controversial in this bill and that everyone should be on board. My hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, even went so far as to say that this bill is indeed a simple and straightforward housekeeping bill. We all know it is more than that, and I respectfully disagree with that statement.

Bill C-24 is much more than a simple piece of housekeeping legislation. There are numerous changes in this bill that would have lasting impacts on a number of regions in Canada. Today, I would like to set the record straight. I would like to explain the concerns I have with this bill, as well as my concerns with the way the government has rushed this bill through the process by trying to make people believe that the bill simply contains housekeeping measures.

First, my major concern with this bill is that it would formally eliminate the positions of the six ministers for regional development agencies. As we know, the previous government maintained a system of six different development agencies, with a minister of state assigned to each. The agencies represented six unique regions of Canada and included one for Atlantic Canada, one for Quebec, one for the north, one for southern Ontario, one for northern Ontario, and one for western Canada. These agencies were tremendously successful in ensuring that regional economic interests were represented at the cabinet table.

The Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development website even states the following:

Canada’s Regional Development Agencies help to address key economic challenges by providing regionally-tailored programs, services, knowledge and expertise that:

Build on regional and local economic assets and strengths;

Support business growth, productivity and innovation;

Help small- and medium-sized businesses effectively compete in the global marketplace;

Provide adjustment assistance in response to economic downturns and crises; and

Support communities.

Despite all of the important work that I just listed, the Prime Minister has stated that he believes that regional development agencies represent a bad kind of politics, whatever he means by that. I know that the Prime Minister and I disagree quite a bit when it comes to politics; that is not really a state secret. However, there is a difference between politics and governance, and I, for one, believe that having a regional economic development minister at the cabinet table fighting for his or her regions of interest is a very effective way to govern.

Rather than having individual ministers represent specific regions through the regional development agencies, the Prime Minister has opted to concentrate this power within one minister, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, a minister from Mississauga—Malton, a minister for everything. How can the Prime Minister honestly expect that a minister from the GTA will be able to effectively fight for Atlantic Canada, western Canada, the north, Quebec, and the list goes on?

We are already seeing that the Prime Minister's new system is not working. For example, just last fall, the government awarded $150,000 in funding that was earmarked for northern Ontario to a company based in, get this, southern Ontario, Mississauga—conveniently, I might add, in the riding of the minister for everything, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and member for Mississauga—Malton. When did it become part of northern Ontario? The Bruce Peninsula is a three-hour drive north of there, and we cannot even get it designated as part of northern Ontario. I think maybe the compass might have been a little faulty in the Prime Minister's Office.

Furthermore, in Atlantic Canada it has been reported that there has been a threefold increase in processing times at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, known as ACOA, since the Prime Minister put the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in charge of the agency. Quite simply, the system is not working. It is pretty clear. I do not believe that the government has the right to give anyone lessons when it comes to the kind of work that our regional economic development agencies do for Canada. While these agencies work hard to deliver funding and ensure that businesses have what they need to succeed in their regions, the Liberal government calls business owners tax cheats, comes up with schemes to tax small businesses, and cannot seem to get any money out the door for important infrastructure projects.

For anyone in rural Canada, and I am one of those MPs who represents a large rural area, infrastructure is non-existent. It is just not there. Major transit projects—and I have nothing against those—get funding in the big cities, while rural Canada gets shafted again.

In fact, in rural Ontario in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, there is a certainty of feeling that we are being forgotten. Important projects are being left on the back burner while the government focuses solely on big city initiatives. FedDev Ontario, the federal economic development agency for southern Ontario, consistently worked to deliver important funding. By the way, the previous government filled that void and put FedDev in there, because there was nothing for southern Ontario before. With this government's inability to get infrastructure out the door, as I said, and now the elimination of FedDev, I am very concerned about what the passage of this bill would mean for rural infrastructure.

Another concern I have with this bill is in regard to the three ministerial positions that are created in the bill but not yet filled. Bill C-24 would create a total of eight new Liberal ministerial positions. In part, this is to accommodate the five minister of state roles that were filled after the 2015 election. However, there are three new positions created with no one to fill them. It really begs the question: Why create positions that are not needed, unless this government has a plan to fill these positions?

If it is the government's plan to fill these positions, I do have some suggestions. For example, let us put in an associate minister of finance. This would be very helpful. That way, the Minister of Finance could actually recuse himself from conversations about pension legislation that directly benefits his family company. We could also use a Minister of International Trade. My apologies, but with the bungling of NAFTA, the stalling TPP negotiations, and the embarrassing fiasco in China last week, I almost forgot that we already have one. Perhaps we could use a minister for rural affairs, instead of a minister of everything from Mississauga—Malton, though I'm not sure the government cares much about communities with a population less than 50,000. In fact, I am very positive about that. The government should be open and transparent and tell us what these mystery positions are all about.

Finally, I would like to conclude by stating that I am very concerned about the pace at which the government is moving on this legislation. I am told that, when the government operations committee studied this legislation, the only two witnesses were the government House leader and one professor. There is no partisanship there, is there? I have been involved and have chaired a number of committees over the years. I can say that having only two witnesses appear before any committee is simply unacceptable and it is certainly not the norm. In no way would it be possible for the committee to complete a full study of this bill or any bill.

Furthermore, I have learned that the topic of regional development agencies was not even discussed at the committee stage. What was the study about? This is unacceptable, and again shows that the government has no intentions of actually talking about this or consulting, whether it is through committee or the public. All they are about is trying to push this bill through as fast as possible.

With that, I am happy to take questions from my hon. colleagues. Before I do, I may not have another opportunity before we break for Christmas, so I would like to take a brief moment, Mr. Speaker, to wish you, your staff, and all my colleagues and members of this House a very merry Christmas and wish everyone all the best in the upcoming year.

[Taxation, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague across the way trying to respond to this. However, I can say that the farmers in my riding are very unhappy with the cuts to AgriInvest, and they do not at all feel like they have been consulted. Farmers across Canada do not understand where these cuts are coming from.

Earlier I quoted the Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie. When he was asked about consultation on changes to AgriInvest, he had this to say: “There really wasn't any consultation on it. There wasn't any discussion amongst the provincial agriculture ministers.” Furthermore, Mark Brock, chairperson for the Grain Farmers of Ontario, said, “It seems to fly in the face of co-operation when...they start monkeying with the programs before we even get to the review process.”

It has been a common theme for the government to keep farmers in the dark. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to come clean as to why these cuts to AgriInvest were made and if he would commit today to reversing them when the government launches its full review of risk management programs.

[Taxation, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to address an issue that I raised in the House regarding the government's attack on farmers through its proposed changes to tax planning measures that it introduced this past summer.

While the government has finally come to its senses and made some necessary changes, I still have some very serious concerns. When the government held consultations on and announced these measures—during the busiest time of the year for farmers, I might add—farmers across Canada were scrambling to understand what the changes could mean for their family farms. During a round table in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, it was suggested that the changes being proposed would have a considerable impact on AgriInvest, a program used by a number of farmers to set money aside for a rainy day.

On three different occasions in the House, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about how the proposed changes would effect the passive income that farmers across Canada have saved in their AgriInvest accounts. Not once did the parliamentary secretary even mention the term “AgriInvest” in any of his answers. He simply dismissed the very serious and real concerns of farmers. I suspect he does not know a thing about AgriInvest.

I can say that farmers did not and do not appreciate being treated like tax cheats or having to fight tooth and nail to have the government finally listen to them. To have a representative of the government not even address a very real and serious concern about a specific federal program, in my mind and the minds of many, is shameful.

Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary went so far, in one of his answers, as to address the new Canadian Agricultural Partnership, which actually cuts the AgriInvest program. Under the new agreement, beginning in 2018, the maximum limit for farmers to contribute will be reduced by $500,000. In addition, the new agreement will see a $5,000 decrease for matching contributions from the government for AgriInvest accounts. Therefore, not only is the government limiting what farmers may contribute to their accounts, but it is also decreasing the amount of support farmers may receive from the government.

It is very disappointing to see the government make cuts to a tried-and-true program like AgriInvest. This is an important program that allows farmers to create a safety net for themselves with their own money, to save for a rainy day, or to invest in new equipment. In response to these changes, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Keith Currie, said, “We need those safety net programs...to be as good as they can be to help support us.” Furthermore, when asked about the changes to AgriInvest, Mark Brock, chairperson of Grain Farmers of Ontario, said, “With the exception of Crop Insurance, AgriInvest is the only program, within the suite of risk management programs, that works well for our farmer-members...”.

Given all of this, I would like to ask the government whether it actually understands how AgriInvest works and why it would make AgriInvest a target of taxation and then a target for cuts.

I want to make one point on this before I sit down. The Government of Canada, through the agriculture minister and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, actually encouraged farmers to do this and then pulled the rug out from underneath them. Is that really fair? I do not think so.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are thinking along the same lines as far as this budget is concerned. I certainly do not want to call it a fiscal plan, because it is far from that. Obviously, we disagree

I could ask all kinds of questions on this. The previous speaker from Crowfoot in Alberta talked about the budget document, and I think he called it a piece of crap. I would never do that. They talk about the $200,000 cover with which they tried to cover up this document.

The way they would say it back in my riding is that people spread manure all the time, so they fill up the spreader with horse manure, and they can cover it with a tarp, but the bottom line is that the spreader is still full of horse manure. Could the member comment on that?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 8th, 2017]

With regard to fines issued to the Canadian Coast Guard by Transport Canada or any other government department or agency, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of each fine, including for each the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location where violation occurred, (iv) law or regulation which was violated, (v) details of incident report, (vi) was the fine paid by taxpayer funds and, if not, who paid the fine?

[Frank Coulter, November 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to recognize the passing of one of Bruce—Grey's finest, Mr. Frank Coulter. Raised on a farm southwest of Owen Sound, he had a knack for sales and seemed destined to become involved in local business. His son Ted said that to get his first job with a local company he was told to sell a pickup truck's worth of baler twine by the end of the day. Frank was back by noon looking for more twine to sell. All of this would lead Frank to found Sprucedale Agromart, a business that would become, and remains today, a staple in Bruce—Grey agriculture.

He worked hard, he played hard. Frank was also a community man. He served on numerous foundations and boards and in 2000 was among a group of investors who fought to keep the OHL's Owen Sound Attack in the city.

While we mourn the loss of a community icon, we know that Frank is looking down on us, likely cheering on his prize racehorses and listening to his favourite song, Tight Fittin' Jeans by Conway Twitty. My sincere condolences go out to his family and friends. What a legacy Frank has left.