Bill C-50 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) enact an advertising and reporting regime for fundraising events attended by Ministers, party leaders or leadership contestants; and
(b) harmonize the rules applicable to contest expenses of nomination contestants and leadership contestants with the rules applicable to election expenses of candidates.

Canada Elections Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak officially to Bill C-50, which we have been discussing for a few hours already, clearly without reaching consensus. There is considerable resistance on this side of the House. While the bill contains some positive elements, it is very disappointing.

Indeed, today is a sad anniversary. One year ago, the Prime Minister announced that there would be no electoral reform, that the 2015 election would not be the last one under the current electoral system, and that the status quo would be maintained for the 2019 election.

During the last election, in 2015, the Liberals created much hope because the Prime Minister and his candidates in all ridings across Canada had solemnly promised electoral reform. They promised to change the voting system in Canada to make it similar to other countries, mostly advanced democracies, who have an electoral system with one form or another of proportional representation. The announcement last year was therefore a major disappointment. As I said, people had trusted the Liberals and placed their faith in the Liberal Party.

In the end, the Prime Minister decided that this was not a good idea. He said that there was not enough of a consensus. However, over 80% of the witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee tasked with studying the issue supported a proportional voting system, or, at the very least, electoral reform. I think that there was a consensus. Furthermore, a large majority of the experts, if not all of them, supported a proportional voting system.

However, the Prime Minister said last year that there was no consensus, and that not enough people agreed on one type of electoral system to implement an electoral reform.

Today, the cat is out of the bag. One year after this announcement, he is starting to show his true colours on the question of electoral reform. Perhaps, he never believed in electoral reform, or never wanted to implement it. Perhaps, cynically speaking, today in 2018, he promised electoral reform just to get elected. Perhaps he never intended to proceed with electoral reform in Canada during his political career.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister told CBC that he had no plans to move forward with electoral reform. He added something pretty revealing. He said that if people still want to talk about electoral reform or a system that would be good for Canadians, he is ready to talk about it, especially if they want to discuss a preferential system. That says a lot about the true intention behind his promise to Canadians to reform the electoral system.

That is the context surrounding Bill C-50. It is such a minor measure, a measure that does very little other than provide slightly more transparency, which I am sure nobody here would object to. The current electoral system has another big problem that this bill does not address. The problem was there when the Conservatives were in power. It was also there when the Liberals were in power before that. They all engaged in the same cash for access practices.

The problem is still there and has again come to light under the current Prime Minister's Liberal government. We have seen him go to private, affluent homes owned by people who have an interest in the affairs of the Government of Canada, people he hosted at these $1,500 events. Some of them had interests in the infrastructure bank while others, such as the Chinese, wanted to buy Canadian telecommunication companies in B.C. Some also had interests in cannabis. We are well aware that those people have influence among the Liberals. They have infiltrated the Liberal Party and taken part in fundraisers to gain access to ministers. The Prime Minister himself attended these cash for access events. He cannot claim that it was just a mistake made by one of his cabinet colleagues who should not have done that. He himself actively participated in the Liberal scheme of selling access to ministers and decision makers at those events.

We know that the Minister of Justice was involved, but I do not want to repeat all the examples given by other members. Still, this is a glaring problem. Certain lawyers seeking judicial appointments to courts across Canada will pay substantial amounts to attend a private reception with the Minister of Justice in a city that is not even in her riding. It does not take an advanced degree in ethics to see that this is a problem. However, no member in the front row of the Liberal government is sounding the alarm. They take part in these events as if it there was nothing wrong.

Given the series of incidents that garnered a lot of media attention, it seemed reasonable to expect today that the Liberals would use Bill C-50 to solve the problem. We would have thought that maybe a cabinet member, perhaps the Minister of Democratic Institutions, would have woken up and told herself that it was time to take action. The government may have reviewed its internal practices, but it likely would have been better to change the law. The government should have acknowledged that privileged access to cabinet is not the right way to do politics in Canada, and then addressed the problem for this and future governments. Instead, with Bill C-50, the government is insinuating that this practice is acceptable and can continue as long as it is more transparent.

People in my home riding of Sherbrooke who have trouble contacting a public servant about the guaranteed income supplement, resolving EI issues with Service Canada, or reaching someone by phone at the Canada Revenue Agency will then see, because it will be transparent, rich investors pay $1,500 to have privileged access not only to a minister, but to the Prime Minister, if they want. All this bill does is formalize or legalize this practice, at a time when our constituents are struggling to receive services from their government. Rich millionaires, for their part, will have a direct line, not to public servants, but to elected officials. The Liberals, however, seem to be saying that there is no problem.

Happily, there is still hope for the people of Sherbrooke, who find this type of privileged access shameful. There are parties in the House, including mine, that are proposing something different.

When my leader, Jagmeet Singh, promises electoral reform, he sincerely means it, unlike the Liberals who say things to get elected, and then do exactly the opposite once they are in power. Happily, there is hope, and I am certain that Canadians can trust our leader, Jagmeet Singh, and get results.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments and his dedication to this file.

At its heart, Bill C-50 is about ensuring that prime ministers, leadership candidates, ministers, and opposition leaders are accountable to Canadians when they attend fundraisers that cost over $200 to attend. This is fundamentally about openness and transparency.

What we seem to have are two opposition parties whose leaders both attended high-value fundraisers. The leader of the official opposition originally denied that he had attended one and later admitted it, and the new leader of the NDP attended high-value fundraisers during his leadership candidacy but is now refusing to follow the leader of the Liberal Party in openness and transparency.

I am at a loss. Perhaps the member could help me understand why it is that we have one party on this side of the House that has embraced this new era of openness and transparency, and we have two parties opposite that are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the passage of a bill that will create more openness and transparency.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague heard the last part of my speech, but the basic problem is that the bill does not solve the problem of cash for access. It just formalizes it and makes it even more official.

My colleague says that it will provide for greater accountability from members of cabinet who take part in these activities, but that is not true. They will simply be able to say that they only had private meetings with rich people. What does that change in the lives of ordinary Canadians? The bill just brings to light that privileged access exists in our democracy. It simply makes it more transparent. The people involved will not be more accountable.

I also do not know why the hon. member is trying to compare cabinet members, the executives, with members of Parliament and even with a leader who is not even a member of this House. I do not understand why he is trying to compare apples and oranges. That never ends very well.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly heard what the member was saying and wondered what his thoughts would be.

I have described this legislation a number of times as “I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar, so I will blame the cookie jar act”. Obviously, the Prime Minister and some of his cabinet ministers have not really followed the legislation that is in existence already, so this is kind of a PR stunt to make it look like something will change.

If the Prime Minister has not followed the laws that are already in place, does the member think that with this change the Prime Minister is going to follow this and it will make everything all right, or does he think the Prime Minister is going to carry on doing the kinds of unethical things he has done in the past?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it actually matters little what legislation is in force, whether it is the Conflict of Interest Act or the Canada Elections Act. I am just afraid that the Prime Minister continues to think that the laws do not apply to him, that they are for others, and that he can do what he wants. Basically, if he contravenes the Conflict of Interest Act, he just pardons himself and acts as if nothing has happened.

Unfortunately, by being found guilty by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for his trip to a private island, he has certainly broken Canadians' trust in our institutions and in the office of Prime Minister. He is supposed to be the first to comply with the laws of Canada. In this case, do not take my word for it; it was the Ethics Commissioner who found him guilty of four violations of the act.

How can we therefore trust a Prime Minister who, with his fellow ministers and Liberal members of Parliament, continues to enact new legislation while having no scruples about contravening it and giving himself a pardon right afterwards?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and participate in this debate. I have listened intently this afternoon to my colleagues' remarks and they have outlined very well not only what is wrong with the legislation, but clearly what is wrong with the government.

The member for Banff—Airdrie referred to it as the Prime Minister getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That is a really good way of summing it up, but I can envision a cartoon where the Prime Minister has his hand in the cookie jar and over his shoulder there are about 20 or 30 other hands reaching into the cookie jar and those hands belong to cabinet ministers.

It all started with the justice minister who, as one of my colleagues referred to earlier, somehow tried to slough off this cash for access fundraiser that she held in Vancouver as just a meeting of friends. Well, all of these friends happened to be lawyers, all meeting with the justice minister, all writing big cheques in the hope that someday one or more of them would be promoted to the bench. They know that the justice minister is the one who makes those decisions. They write a cheque, hobnob a bit at a private fundraiser and that is what happens.

We had the government being caught on more than one occasion with this cash for access. It is hard to imagine that we have only been in this place for just over two years and when we look at all of the ethics breaches the government has managed to come forward with, if we wanted to script this, it would be very difficult. The former health minister decided she needed her own limos. Another minister continues to use limos to go back and forth between here and the minister's home in Quebec. The Prime Minister travelled to a private island.

The Conservatives actually travelled to an island a week ago, but we went to Vancouver Island to work. We did not go to a private island owned by the Aga Khan to play on the beach and then bill taxpayers for that trip. By the way, he also took along the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and there might have been a backbencher who went with them as well. There was a whole bunch of them who decided it was all right to go to a private island and bill the taxpayers for it. These are the kinds of ethics issues we raise day after day in the House and we hear lots of chuckles from the government side. The Liberals think it is a big joke. They call it open and transparent. I call it unethical behaviour.

It took the Prime Minister just over a year to break the rules. What did the Liberals do? They bring in legislation under the namesake of open and transparent legislation. They were not going to do this again. They were not going to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They are actually going to tell people when they are sticking their hands in the cookie jar and somehow that makes it okay.

It is important to note that despite the Liberals having their hands in the cookie jar, the Conservatives continued to raise more money than the Liberals. The numbers are out now and 2017 was a banner year for the Conservatives. Canadians felt that they needed to make a contribution to a party that was prepared to hold the government to account. Some $18 million was raised by the Conservatives in the last year and $14 million was raised by the Liberals. By the way, the party in government should be able to raise twice as much money as the opposition because the governing party is the one that makes the decisions.

It is human nature for people to write cheques to the government party so they can feel like they have some influence on those decisions, but they were a failure. The government is not only a failure at governing, it is a failure at raising money but it has to do it unethically so it brings in this legislation. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader stood up a few minutes ago and quoted the outgoing Ethics Commissioner as saying that this legislation is headed in the right direction.

I thought about that for a minute, and I remembered that a short time ago, I was in a strange city and I was not sure where I was. I stopped at a gas station and asked if I was headed in the right direction. The guy said that yes, I was headed in the right direction, and so I said, “Okay, I just keep going down that road.” He then said, “No, if you go down that road, it ends and actually falls off a cliff.” He said that I had to turn left and then turn right. I sort of caution the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that headed in the right direction does not mean it is the answer to solving the unethical behaviour of the current government.

I have heard this just about every time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions stands up and talks. I know that these are all the Liberal talking points about openness, transparency, and all of these types of things, but quite frankly, this legislation is none of the above. It pretends that it is open. It pretends that somehow what the cabinet ministers are doing is open and transparent and it meets all of what Canadians believe an ethical government would be doing, an ethical party would be doing, but it does not.

As an example, as has been mentioned many times today, parliamentary secretaries such as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, are not covered by this particular legislation. He can go out and have private fundraisers, use his position as a parliamentary secretary, and that is all just fine. He does not have to abide by the legislation, but that is okay because this particular party, this particular government does not abide by most legislation or legal rules anyway.

The Prime Minister took a trip to a private island. When he came back, he tried to hide it. Then it was discovered that yes, he did in fact take the trip with his buddy the veterans affairs minister and a couple of others, and billed the taxpayers to the tune of about $200,000. Not only does he refuse to pay that money back, but he refuses to stand up and answer questions in this House. He sloughs it off to his House leader to answer the questions for him. That is absolutely despicable.

We know this legislation is going to pass, and we know that it is better than what the government could have brought forward. Quite frankly, I thought the government would be bringing back the per vote subsidy, because we have seen the Liberals cannot raise money to the tune that the Conservatives can raise money with Canadians. I thought they would be bringing back the per vote subsidy because, like the New Democrats, that is what the Liberals think is the right way to have Canadians fund political parties. I am proud to say that when the Conservative Party was in government, it changed all of that, and our legislation today for how we raise money is among the best in the world.

However, we do not need legislation to prevent bad behaviour and that is what we have had by the Liberal government. We have had bad ethical behaviour, so what has happened is the Liberals have brought in this particular legislation to try to cover up their bad behaviour and now they want Canadians to say that they have solved all the problems. It has been made very clear by our members who have spoken to this particular bill that we are not going to fall for this. Canadians will not fall for it either, and the Liberals will end up paying the price in the next election. They are already paying the price because Canadians are no longer delivering the money to their party. The Liberals will pay the price in 2019.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the member, along with his colleagues across the way, have a new-found esteem for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and have been very interested lately in what she had to say about a number of topics. I wonder if the member would tell me how he feels about what she said about Bill C-50, which is:

I support the direction of this proposed legislation.... The amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed by Bill C-50 promote transparency with respect to fundraising activities. I think it is a positive measure.... It goes quite a good way, I think, because it puts things in the public domain. It allows me to have access to some information if I'm dealing with some kind of a problem.

Does the member agree with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member was listening to my speech, but I absolutely addressed that, because it was raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Heading in the right direction hardly means that it is going to solve the problem. If a person is driving in a strange city and stops to ask someone if he or she is headed in the right direction, the answer may be, “Yes, but you had better take a left or right turn because you will drive off the edge of a cliff if you stay headed in that direction.”

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is probably not much of a surprise to anyone in this chamber that I agree with many of the sentiments of my colleague from Alberta, particularly that this is more about political cover for mistakes made by the Prime Minister and many of his ministers, including the Minister of Justice, who hails from British Columbia.

There have been useful changes in the system, done by both Conservative and Liberal governments past. Getting rid of big money by banning union and corporate donations certainly changed the way that we campaign in this country, and I think for the better. It is something that the previous Chrétien government brought into play and which the Conservatives, in the last several Parliaments, continued to tighten up.

In this regard, would the member give us a specific example of why this is more political covering for the Liberals' lack of integrity, similar to what we saw with their proposed open, transparent, and accountable government pledges, only to have them vacationing and breaking the ethics laws?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the sunny Okanagan is exactly correct. We will give full credit to the former Liberal government and former Prime Minister Chrétien who brought in significant changes, changes which, frankly, I think everyone endorsed and certainly endorses today. One cannot be seen to be bought by big corporations or unions and it was brought in because that was a perception that many Canadians had.

This is totally different. This is cover-up legislation. This is trying to cover up bad ethical behaviour. As my colleague mentioned, it started in Vancouver literally months after the Liberal government was elected, with the Minister of Justice hauling in a bunch of lawyers to write big cheques and expect to get promoted to the bench. Then it went from there, and we all know about the Prime Minister's little trip to an island last Christmas and he is still refusing to pay that money back.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to something I previously asked. I am surprised that the Conservative Party does not recognize the value of having legislation that is more transparent when it comes to political fundraising, specifically in the area of leaders, not just ministers, but leaders. I am going to ask the member the same question I have asked other members.

Does the Conservative Party really believe that it is fooling Canadians by voting against this legislation, trying to give the impression that there is no need to hold the leader of the official opposition or other opposition party leaders accountable for where they are getting their money from? It was not that long ago when the leader of the official opposition was not telling people when he had fundraisers and who was contributing to his campaign. Why are the Conservatives opposing that?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our leader has not been found guilty of conflict of interest. Our shadow minister of finance has not been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner for forgetting to report his rental apartment in Ottawa.

There is a big difference between our members and how they conduct themselves and how this Prime Minister and these ministers have been conducting themselves over the past two years.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in this evening's debate on Bill C-50, which I consider a highly superficial solution to a problem the Liberal Party itself created.

In 2016, from the summer through to the end of the year, the Liberal Party of Canada organized a number of $1,500-a-ticket fundraisers. They were held across Canada, in major centres and in the regions, and were attended by 30, 40, 50 or 60 guests at a time. People had to organize the fundraisers to provide special access to the Prime Minister and various ministers. No doubt the orders came from the Liberal Party itself, putting the Prime Minister and a number of Liberal ministers in the awkward position of probably having to make a few speeches, drink some good wine, and eat some little crackers. That is all well and good. Unfortunately, there were some less than pleasant discussions about the whole situation, discussions involving ministers and the Prime Minister about a problem the Liberals created.

During the election campaign, the Liberals peddled hope. They said they would put all kinds of money into infrastructure, but they were very evasive about how it would be done and where the money would go. People wanted to know how to get some of that money. As a result, in order to boost their own party funding, the Liberals created a monster during the election campaign that caused some ethical problems. How sad.

Canadians can donate to political parties. We, on this side of the House, look for values and direction. We give Canadians the option of donating money to the Conservative Party or to Conservative Party associations, because we want to provide all Canadians with vital leadership that is fair and equitable.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party gets its funding based on the private interests of organizations and companies that want preferential treatment or information on how to get what they want, such as access to programs or appointments. We have seen that in the past, and I have no doubt we will see it again in the future.

Sooner or later, this whole thing will become a scandal and really blow up. The scandal will undermine Canadians' confidence in our democracy, all because of the old Liberal ways when it comes to party financing.

I can confirm that the more time goes by, the more opportunities we will have to ask the new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to enforce and monitor the directives established in the document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, provided by the Prime Minister himself, who made some changes here in the House.

This evening I have the opportunity to talk about values and ethics and to reiterate our concerns on this side of the House for the new Liberal MPs who are being immersed in the old Liberal Party culture by the old guard, perhaps, or the upper echelons of the party.

Ethics are clearly a value lacking from this Liberal government's judgment. I believe that the Liberals like to get dangerously close to the borderline and step on either side. They always push the boundaries of conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, we must not put ourselves in conflict of interest or in apparent conflict of interest. It is truly unacceptable in our democracy.

The goal of this evening's debate is specifically to ensure that no preferential access or appearance of preferential access in exchange for donations is granted to individuals or organizations that may have contributed to the Liberal Party through its fundraising activities. That is why I stated that in the last six months of 2016, the Liberal Party organized a series of $1,500-a-ticket events for 25, 30, 40 or 50 people, raking in $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or $70,000 per evening.

I want to confirm that, since the Liberals came to power, scandals involving the Liberals' dubious fundraising activities have continued to emerge. There are always new events that outrage honest citizens, hence this evening's debate on a government initiative to put in place superficial measures related to its own conduct.

It is very shocking, because not all Canadians can afford to pay $1,500 for privileged access to a minister or the Prime Minister. Ethical lapses continue to pile up. It began when the Prime Minister's friends moved to Ottawa from Toronto or other cities, claiming $200,000 in moving expenses. Personally, when I move, I pay for it myself, and that is also the case for Canadians.

I would like to go back to a story we hear a lot about these days. I had the opportunity to ask several questions about the famous trip taken by the Prime Minister to the Aga Khan's private island. The Prime Minister apologized for that mistake, but he said it had to do with the trip itself, which ended in January 2017. It is hard to imagine that the Prime Minister did not plan the trip with his family and that it was just a mistake. Come on. During her 11-month investigation, the previous conflict of interest and ethics commissioner learned that the trip first started being planned in the summer of 2016. People in the Prime Minister's Office, the RCMP, and the Prime Minister's family, among others, already knew that he would be visiting the Aga Khan's island. This therefore is not a simple mistake. The trip was planned, and they had the opportunity, right from the start, to ask the commissioner if precautions should be taken to avoid any conflict of interest. Unfortunately, we learned from the report that no such inquiry was submitted to the commissioner.

In addition, the Prime Minister's family so thoroughly enjoyed the trip to the Aga Khan's island, which cost Canadian taxpayers more than $200,000, that they were ready to go back there two months later, after being invited again. The family then packed up their bags and flew once more to the island, again at taxpayers' expense.

Canadians were not fooled and they are shocked. They like travelling, but they pay for their trips out of their own pockets when they choose to travel to such sunny destinations. The Prime Minister, however, chooses not to pay and to just apologize. When something is stolen, apologies are not enough. One must be accountable to society. All this leads us to believe that this bill is just a cosmetic exercise for a problem created by the Liberals. In my view, the old Liberal culture will keep rearing its ugly head, and we will be pleased to denounce it.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I have never owned a mule, and I have never had the opportunity to ride on a mule, but I imagine that if I had a favourite old mule, I would want to ride it as far and as long as I possibly could. Looking at things that way, I can understand why members of the official opposition party are riding this particular mule as far as they have, the mule of pretending to oppose this bill for any reason other than the true reason, which is that they do not want to have transparency in their fundraising regime.

Will the member opposite admit that this mule is tired, unsaddle it, and tell us all that the real reason for the opposition is to avoid full transparency in fundraising, such as modelled by this side of the House?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House see no problem with the political financing system. The laws in place are already very good. The Liberals created the problem, and now they are looking for a way out. Unfortunately for them, that is not going to happen. This is what happens when political financing is used to get favours, and we have to try to make the best of it.