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

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have eagerly awaited my turn to speak on Bill C-50 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

This bill claims it will make political party financing more transparent. The problem is that it completely misses the root of the problem, and sadly, I suspect that was the intention. I wish to remind the members that we are all here to represent the people who chose us, not to represent the political party that we chose. We are here to speak on behalf of the people and defend their interests. We are here to make sure that the people in our ridings are protected against powerful interests.

Interest groups and elites have lobbies to push their causes, but for the Canadian people, we are their lobbies, in a way. However, the public is losing faith in us. Nowadays, it has become commonplace to say that politicians are corrupt, that they are in the pockets of big money, that they are up for sale. Like the weather and the usual gripes, distrust of Canada's political class is now a topic for small talk. The relationship between us and the people who elected us is the backbone of democracy. If we let that relationship crumble, we will have no purpose anymore.

The government claims to want to make the funding of political parties more transparent with Bill C-50. From now on, when governing parties want to organize $1,500 per person cocktail parties, they will have to advertise them in advance and report the names of those who attend.

However, the fact that these events were not advertised has never been the problem. Even if these $1,500 per person evenings were to make the front page of the newspaper, my constituents in Joliette would not attend. They cannot afford to spend that kind of money to meet politicians. In fact, most of them would simply like to have that kind of money.

The fact that we did not know who attended these parties has never been the problem. The Chief Electoral Officer releases a yearly report on political contributions. One need only check his website to get all the information.

The problem has nothing to do with the publicity surrounding the great Canadian tango between the two main federal parties, or with the guest list. The problem lies with the events themselves. The problem is that by selling privileged access to the prime minister, cabinet, and aspiring opposition ministers, when polls are good, that sends Canadians the message that access to our decision-makers can be bought. In this case, the fee is $1,500.

This makes people feel as though there is one democracy for them and another democracy for special interests. There is a democracy for ordinary folks and a democracy for folks who can pay. Everyone knows that this type of fundraising is wrong except for the politicians who benefit from it. Commentators often talk about a cynical public, but that is not at all true. The public has a moral compass. The public can tell between what is good and what is bad. In the people's eyes, we are the cynical ones, driven by our own interests.

The most precious thing a politician has is his or her reputation. This problem had been fixed. The Liberals themselves, under Jean Chrétien, brought forward a solution with the per-vote subsidy. With public financing, the parties' election funds are directly tied to the public's democratic choice. For each vote, the political parties receive a small amount of money, or the equivalent of a medium coffee at a roadside cafe.

Public funding goes hand in hand with lower caps on donations to parties and public office holders. There has to be a reasonable, decent limit. Together, these two measures will send people two messages. First, they will know their vote counts because, even if their party loses the election, they will help fund the political party that best reflects their ideals. This is one way to encourage people to vote for the party that best represents them rather than force them to put an X next to the name of the least bad candidate for the job of prime minister or the person who is most likely to beat the worst candidate. This would also promote diversity in politics by ensuring stable, predictable, recurring funding for all political parties including the small ones, as well as a healthy exchange of ideas in the House of Commons, something there can certainly never be too much of in a democracy.

Second, public funding combined with lower donation caps will send voters the message that all votes are equal because parties will not raise funds by courting the elite during pricey exclusive dinners.

Bill C-50 does nothing to address that problem. It is just hot air.

That is why we are going to vote against this bill, not because it is detrimental, but because it is completely useless. I would also add that it is dishonest to claim that this bill is going to clean up democracy. Real solutions do exist, and we could be taking strong action, but this bill offers nothing but half measures.

This bill is a snake oil cure. Its primary purpose is to distract us from the current government's ethical problems, which bear a remarkable resemblance to those of the previous government, I must say. Bill C-50 will do nothing to stop the scandals that caused so much embarrassment for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, and so on from happening again.

In closing, I would ask my colleagues to think about their constituents. We all know our constituents. We live beside them. They are our neighbours, our friends, our relatives, members of our community, people who get involved, our volunteers. We know their values, their needs and their wishes. We also know what they expect of us. I therefore ask my colleagues to take action and do something meaningful to strengthen and perhaps to restore the relationship of trust between us and the public.

There is an easy solution. I just spelled it out. I did not make it up. It is currently on the table. My colleague from Terrebonne proposed it in another bill we are debating in the House these days. His bill restores public financing for political parties and lowers donation limits.

I can assure my colleagues across the way that my colleague from Terrebonne is not petty or selfish. He would not hold it against the government if it were to adopt the solution proposed in his bill and include it in the budget. He would be totally open to that, as would I.

He would even commend the government on having the courage to do the right thing. The current system is simply costing us too much. How much? It is costing the federal Parliament its democratic legitimacy, no more no less.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my friend across the way is in with respect to the independent commissioner's office. Mary Dawson commented that the legislation was positive and a way to ensure more transparency. I think most stakeholders looking at it would see that it would ensure more transparency, not only for the Prime Minister and cabinet, but also recognize the important role political leaders play, whether it is the leader of the Bloc, the New Democrats, or the Conservatives.

Does my friend have any issues with making it mandatory, by law, for those leaders, and the Prime Minister and cabinet to be more transparent? When someone pays, say, $500 to sit down over a supper, Canadians will then have the right to know with whom the Prime Minister or the leader of a political party has met. Is that not a reasonable to have that within the legislation?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting against this bill and not because it is bad, but because it is innocuous and meaningless. The information is published at the end of the year on the Chief Electoral Officer's website. We know who contributed to each political party because that information is public.

The Bloc Québécois takes issue with the fact that the bill gives a fake solution to the current ethics problem. Under the bill, information will be made public on those who meet with the Prime Minister, ministers, or those aspiring to become Prime Minister or a minister. However, the number of meetings will not necessarily go down. In our democracy the problem is not who is meeting these people. We know who is meeting with whom. It is the financing system that has to change. We have to go back to Jean Chrétien's model of public financing.

According to surveys, the party in power and those that hope to get there currently have access to more funding from the business community, which, as we well know, wields a great deal of power. The very foundation of democracy is about trying to level the playing field for each individual, so that each voice can be heard and the middle class and low-income earners are also represented.

The current financing system does not respect that, which is why we oppose it. This bill is merely a distraction. It accomplishes nothing.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the cynicism the current government has engendered through its actions on electoral reform and the funding of political activities in all its forms. I hear from my constituents that many people are so disappointed in the government and the promises it has broken, especially on electoral reform, one of the main platforms of the election. These people were encouraged to vote for the government because of that, and now they are cynical and may never vote again. This is very damaging to Canadian democracy. I would to hear his comments.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

To me, the current government is the very epitome of political cynicism. My colleague mentioned the Liberal Party's plan for electoral reform, which was in its election platform when it was the second opposition party. As soon as the Liberals came to power, thanks to the current system, they threw the committee members under the bus, claiming that the members could not agree.

The committee agrees? The Liberals disavow it. They are mired in funding scandals? They introduce a meaningless bill to try and divert attention, pure and simple.

This is actually quite similar to the cannabis legislation. Many have noted that permits are being granted to friends of the Liberal Party and that the value of shares has more than tripled over the past few months. There is a lot of cash to be made, mostly by their friends. This only adds to people's cynicism, and this has to change. I really hope that our voters will make an informed decision in the next election.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take members of the House on a journey through the logic of this bill.

[An hon. member]

It might start a revolution.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Yes, it might start a revolution, Mr. Speaker.

Let us start with a short title proposition for the bill. I think it is a Liberal Party slogan, but I also think it should become a short title for Bill C-50: in God we trust; all others pay cash. It is also a Yiddish proverb, which is why I want it to be introduced as a short title for this bill. It comes down to the logic of what is in this bill, which is that the Liberal Party of Canada has a deep-seated problem with accepting illegal donations from stakeholder groups.

I am not saying that it is individual backbench members of the government caucus. I am saying that government ministers have struggled with this very mightily, and now they are introducing a piece of legislation that will apply only to them. Seemingly, they could have already done this. They could have already applied moral and ethical standards to not do this. Instead, they chose to pass a piece of legislation to tell them not to do something. On this side of the House, we are being told, “Trust us this time”, and perhaps give them some cash, if they accept the short title. “Trust us this time. We will obey this law because we are able to do that.”

The leader of the government, the Prime Minister, has proven that he is completely incapable of living up to the standards contained within the ethical requirements, both in the code and in the law itself. The Ethics Commissioner has sanctioned him and has mentioned that there are ethical violations of four sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. She enumerated them and provided the reasoning on both sides of the issue. Actually, she completely eviscerated every single argument put forward by the Prime Minister and his lawyers excusing the behaviour.

On one side, we have this fiasco the House is now trying to deal with and are demanding that taxpayers be returned the $200,000 he wasted, that he unfairly and unjustly procured for himself. Now we are being told that there will be a new law passed. Cabinet ministers in the government will be expected to live up to the ethical moral standard that will be contained in a law; that is, the disclosure of who attends Liberal Party fundraisers. If that is the goal of this piece of legislation, the logic of it almost demands that the short title become “In God we trust; all others pay cash”, because that is the logic. It is a bill about nothing.

Other members have mentioned this. The member for Edmonton West did so in prior debate. He referenced a Seinfeld episode called “The Pitch”, in season 4, episode 3, in which George comes up with an idea for a show about nothing, absolutely nothing.

There is nothing contained in this bill the government cannot already do. I mentioned to a few members that what I thought could be easily done is to tell a 10-year-old to google “Liberal Party fundraisers”, and that would fulfill the same things contained in this law.

We could google to see where ministers travel. I have my staff do that anyway, because I want to know if Liberal cabinet ministers are travelling to Calgary or other provinces in areas of interest to me so that I know where they are doing fundraisers. There are pictures posted online all the time on Twitter, on Facebook, and on Snapchat.

There is nothing in this law that would bring a modicum of improvement of any sort to the ethical and moral obligations of the government. It cannot live up to them anyway, so why would it force it into a piece of legislation if we know it is incapable of following the Conflict of Interest Act already? Why should the House pass a piece of legislation that will tell the Liberals to do something when we have proof that they are incapable of living up to those established requirements already? It is the Prime Minister himself who cannot live up to the Conflict of Interest Act requirements, and he has been sanctioned for it by the Ethics Commissioner. We know that already, so why do we need laws?

I obviously will not be supporting the bill. I will think about moving an amendment to change the short title. I see the table officer thinking about it. I will think about it and let him know at the end of my speech if that is something I want to do or if I am just kidding.

I notice that the punishment for the strict liability offences is a penalty of $1,000 for violations of this act. Holding a major fundraiser with cabinet ministers would perhaps raise $50,000, $100,000, or $200,000. We do not know.

There are a lot of private sector companies that could be available for purchase by state-owned enterprises owned by the People's Republic of China they could organize fundraisers around. Who knows how much money they could raise? They would then be liable for a $1,000 summary conviction fine.

It does not seem to impact the Liberals. The Prime Minister has been fined $500. This would be double that. A double increase is almost ridiculous. It is a pittance, considering the amount of funds a cabinet minister could potentially raise by travelling to a certain city and holding these with stakeholders. It is not something one is supposed to do.

I speak partially from experience, having been a former exempt staffer here in Ottawa. I was also a staff member in the Edmonton legislature. I knew what the rules were. We were all told what the rules were. It was something that both staff and ministers were responsible for. We had to protect our minister as best we could. It was incumbent on the minister also to know where the line was for an ethical and moral obligation. It did not need to be in legislation for us to know what was right and what was wrong. In this case, the Liberals are saying that they need it in legislation. They need to be told by the House of Commons and the Senate what is wrong and what is right.

In this case, they would continue to take money, potentially money they should not be raising from certain stakeholders, but they would disclose it. They would provide a report, in a nice format, somewhere online. Perhaps they would tweet it out or put it on Snapchat or Instagram. It would be so much easier for us to find. They should not do it in the first place. It is just that easy.

If they are offered a private helicopter ride to a beautiful island somewhere in the Caribbean, they should just not take it. It is just that simple. There is nothing more complicated about it. They do not need to run everything by the Ethics Commissioner. They do not need to check in with the Ethics Commissioner. Can they take a vacation. It is simple. If someone is offering them something that is too good to be true, such as a free paid vacation to an island somewhere, they should not take it.

If cabinet ministers have an opportunity to fundraise large sums of money, and it is coming from stakeholders in their departments, they could be lobbying them by buying these tickets. They should just not do it. They should not take the funds. If they did, they should return the funds. The House in the past has been pretty generous to ministers who have admitted to fault and have paid it back. Ministers have done it. Members of Parliament have done it. The House has been judicious in how it deals with such situations.

We rely on things like the Ethics Commissioner to outline the facts of a case, and then we deal with those facts in the House, which is also why we are asking the Prime Minister to return the money he illegally, unfairly, and unjustly charged to the taxpayer.

This legislation is just window dressing. It is a bill about nothing. There is no content to it. It really should be amended. We could amend almost the whole thing by saying, “In God we trust; others pay cash”, because that is what it seems to be about. They have fundraising targets they need to reach, and they are desperate to do so. In their bid to make it look as if they are ethical and moral and that every single member of the cabinet has splendid integrity, they are saying that they will have a piece of legislation and disclose everything so everyone will know exactly who is fundraising with them and who is attending their meetings.

It does not matter. If they are lobbyists, is it at a lobbyist's home? If these are stakeholders and there is a perception of a conflict of interest in the future, they should just not do it. They should not take their cash.

Mr. Speaker, you have given me an indication that my time is coming to a close, but that is the contribution I wanted to make to this debate. They should just not do it. They should return the money if they have taken it unfairly. Also, they should not pass a piece of legislation that should be just common sense. If it is common sense, it does not need to be in legislation. That is exactly why we call it common sense. That is not the purpose of legislation. Legislation is to provide rules and guidance formally and to make something have actual consequences. Bill C-50 does not do that. It is a Liberal Party of Canada problem. It is not a Government of Canada problem.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have known the member for a while now, and I know he is new. I saw him in action at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, and I have a great deal of respect for him, both as a member and as part of the exempt staff he pointed out.

This is probably more about me speaking about Bill C-50 itself as opposed to going through the list of his arguments or assertions. In this case, transparency is key. In my 14 years' experience here, everyone asks for transparency in light of the fact that we are not trying to eliminate something that exists, as in the case of fundraising. We all know there are certainties in life. There is death, taxes, and of course fundraising, because we all have to do it, which was acknowledged by the other side. I appreciate that.

What Bill C-50 does, just the bill alone, is that it provides an amount of transparency for those who want to attend for the sake of their party or their own electoral district. The rules are in place to allow transparency so that everybody can see this, and it allows them to participate in what is a function of democracy.

With some people, like in the United States, it goes very far in what fundraising is meant to do. I am glad we have the laws that we do. The member pointed out what Jean Chrétien did many years ago, banning the donations from either corporations or unions, and I agree with that as well. That is truly a great step in the right direction. This is part of that step as well in terms of transparency.

If the member does not support Bill C-50, what is the answer?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I spent a lot of time together at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, afternoons, evenings, and mornings, but thankfully not weekends.

The answer is pretty simple. Raise the ethical bar. Raise the moral bar. He heard me say this at the committee, and I will say it here as well but in a much shorter time frame. We do not need legislation to tell us what to do if we are guided by a moral compass that tells us the right things. When we listen to it, we will always end up taking the right path and the right journey. Legislation in and of itself, more legislation, will never fix the ethical problems that happen to occur on that side of the House on the front bench. I do not mean the government caucus. I mean specifically members of the executive council, members of the cabinet. I want to draw a very firm distinction there.

More legislation is typically the answer that most members of Parliament and Senators will give, and that is not the solution. The solution is to behave better, to act better. It has been said many times on the opposite side of the House in talking points and speeches: do better. “Be the change in the world we want to see” is something I sometimes hear from my kids when they come back from school. Do that: just behave better.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found the exchange very interesting. It was a great speech by my colleague from Calgary Shepard. What is interesting is that our friend on the other side from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame gave a speech in the last Parliament on transparency. In fact, he spoke on Bill C-613, sponsored by the Prime Minister, on accountability with respect to access to information. The lovely bromides we heard when he spoke in opposition are not being met in government. He said that bill would be “more accountable” than government had ever been. The bill had a subtitle of transparency.

He mentioned Suzanne Legault with respect to access to information and a range of things. Madame Legault criticized the Prime Minister for not meeting the needs of access to information with the bill before us. Now we have a political financing bill that is simply PR to respond to some of the inappropriate actions of the Prime Minister.

Is this really about transparency or is it about message control by the Prime Minister's Office?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is message control. This is trying to close the gap on a problem that the Liberal Party has. It is a problem with the cabinet. We see it in the quarterly fundraising numbers that came out very recently. Without these cash for access fundraisers the Liberals have been doing in the past, and the smokescreen they are offering right now, they just cannot keep up.

Canadians know they are not being represented by an ethical government acting in their best interests. It is simply acting in its own best interests.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, and to lament what I think is a significant lost opportunity to improve fundraising practices in Canada in a meaningful way. It is very disappointing. Of course we will support the bill. However, it does so little it is hardly worth it.

What the Liberals are trying to do, and I heard this when listening to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader this morning, is what I would call “bait and switch”. They would like us to think that by somehow being aware that they are having these cash for access fundraisers, we should all be content: “There is nothing going on here, nothing to watch here, so just move on.”

However, that misses the whole point. They pretend this great transparency that they talk about is going to make a critical difference in the understanding of that, forgetting all the while that people can still come and give their money to the party at these private homes in West Vancouver or on Bay Street, and the like, and somehow Canadians should be tickled pink that we now have the ability to know a couple of days in advance, to find out who is there, and so on, missing the point that cash for access is alive and well and just fine. I know a particular individual has paid a lot of money to be there and talk to the finance minister or the Prime Minister. They are on the back porch at that House in West Vancouver.

At one point, the Liberal Party said it was doing that to have fun and help the party. Then the Prime Minister acknowledged that sometimes they do talk about things at these fundraisers, like who gets the contract, which law firm is going to get the fisheries prosecution contract this year, who is going to get the bridge construction contract, and so on. It exacerbates the cynicism that Canadians have about the current government and our democracy in general. It demonstrates the continuing inequality, because not everybody from rural Canada or impoverished communities are able to go there, spend the money, and buttonhole the Prime Minister about their favourite project. However, if one has lots of money, apparently one can, and we should forget that is a problem. We should just assume that because we know it is happening somehow that makes it all fine.

It is not fine. It undermines our democracy.

This bill is a travesty. It could have been so much more. The Liberals ignored all the recommendations of the conflict of interest commissioner in producing this. They think if they change the channel and pivot away, if they bait and switch, somehow Canadians will forget.

Speaking of bait and switch, I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader use another bait and switch technique. It goes like this, “Mr. Jagmeet Singh, who is the leader of the NDP, has to be transparent too so we will know what the opposition fundraisers are about as well.” There is a tiny problem with that. Members will agree with me I hope that Mr. Jagmeet Singh is not giving out bridge contracts, contracts to law firms, contracts to do whatever people are lobbying the government to do. That is the shame of this bill.

The Liberals think they can persuade Canadians that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that we are all the same here, forgetting that the government controls billions of dollars in expenditures every year, has patronage positions by the thousands, and somehow we have to make sure that the opposition parties are treated just like the Prime Minister and the cabinet. What a joke. I hope Canadians are not hoodwinked by this rhetoric.

I pointed out earlier in my remarks to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that yesterday marked a very sad anniversary. The current government got elected in large measure, certainly among young people in my riding I can confirm without a hesitation at all, on the basis that the election laws would be changed. The Liberal Party got 39.5% of the vote, ends up with 100% of the power, and that is supposed to be just fine. People said, “No, no, the Prime Minister came to my riding, and I think dozens of other ridings, and said that those days are over.” Yesterday marks an exact year since the Prime Minister decided that he was just kidding. I can say that the level of cynicism that has engendered saddens me as a Canadian. It saddens me as a person who believes in our parliamentary democracy.

I do not usually quote the Canadian Press, but to give them credit, on December 1 of last year they had something that members may be familiar with. They call it the “baloney meter”. It talked about the first response by the Liberals about why they were not proceeding with electoral reform. The Liberals said they would only do it with “broad support”. Did they ever say that during the campaign?

However, the Canadian Press, which is hardly a radical NDP organ, said that this merits the full of baloney award. I think it is good that the press, at least, is watching and understands that.

Then just this last Saturday morning, the Prime Minister went on “The House”, the CBC program. He said that proportional representation, which is the choice of most Canadians, every poll would say, would divide Canadians and “exacerbate the small differences in the electorate”. I guess that is why we are not proceeding. Then there was another one where it was his preferred ranked ballot system that was the reason why we could not proceed. People did not like his little options, so he was taking his marbles and going home.

I have to say that I know I am making light of this. I know it is easy to do, and I know it is a standing joke among Canadians what this government has done, breaking promises on fundamental reform, which were repeated like a mantra at every election stop across the land to get young people engaged.

My colleague from the Okanagan talked about constituents of his who said, as I recall, that they were going to do what their children wanted them to do in voting. They got them all engaged in the electoral promise. Essentially, because of the promise the Prime Minister made about electoral reform, we do not know who they voted for but one can guess, now they are not going to vote anymore. Now they are like many people in my riding who say, “What is the point?”, and will be indifferent when the actual election comes.

This also could be the despair for lobbyists act. I know I called it the bait and switch act, but I do not know if I should give it that title. Now I am going to call it the lobbyists despair act, because why get expensive lobbyists in Ottawa when one can pay 1,000 bucks or so, go meet the finance minister, and talk on the back lawn of a West Vancouver billionaire's house or at a Bay Street party somewhere in Rosedale about what one wants?

Who needs a lobbyist anymore? I kind of feel sorry for the lobbyist industry because cash for access is just so much more effective. I know who I am talking to. I am not dealing with some parliamentary secretary. Oh, by the way, they are not covered by this act. I am not dealing with the chief of staff or anything. I am going to go straight to the finance minister and talk about pension reform like Morneau Shepell.

I am going to say as well that the level of cynicism and the level of the inequality that this bill represents is really quite shocking. I would like to read what a journalist, Paul Willcocks, has said about this:

Cash-for-access fundraisers undermine democracy and put Canada’s political inequality on display. The rich and powerful pay to advance their interests behind closed doors, while the rest of us stand outside. They let the party in power sell access—to the prime minister, cabinet ministers, senior officials—in a way that entrenches its political dominance.

This is wrong. Its cosmetic changes are nice and we will support them. However, I end where I began. This is a missed opportunity. This is a bait and switch bill. This does not address the problem, except to put a happy face on a practice that has gone on far too long and undermines our democracy.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my questioning is going to pick up where I last left off with the Conservative member. He mentioned that he is supporting the bill, but that it does not go far enough in his opinion. That is fine and I respect that.

Further, he went on to vilify how we do fundraising. His assertions about cash for access I will put aside. I am not privy to every conversation that happens between a current minister, whether they are federal or provincial, and someone else. If the conversation does delve into the issue of influence, that is wrong. I acknowledge that.

However, let us acknowledge the fact that ministers in this country also belong to a legislature and are involved in elections in which they have to raise money. The member mentioned his leader, Jagmeet Singh. If we look at the numbers from the leadership campaign, he is well accomplished at raising a substantial amount of money, outnumbering his colleagues by a vast margin. I am insinuating nothing about those conversations and what was said.

If this does not go far enough, how far does one go before actually banning people from fundraising in general?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame for his thoughtful acknowledgement that all parties have to raise funds, and I accept that entirely. Whether, however, people should be talking at a fundraiser with a cabinet minister about a contract or a job they would like, the Liberals have changed their tune on this.

A while ago, Liberal Party national director Christina Topp tried an absurd defence. She said, “"Fundraising events are partisan functions where we do not discuss government business." Then a couple of weeks later, the Prime Minister confirmed that donors did talk about government business and lobbied him to advance their own interests at these fundraisers.

I am happy to have Jagmeet Singh available and accountable.

The point remains that we can do better than allow people to abuse the system and buy influence, which the Prime Minister acknowledges is part of the fundraising game. It does not matter if it is the Liberals, or the NDP or the Conservatives, Canadians expect better. A lot of my constituents cannot afford $2,000 or $1,500 to go and find the guy who will talk to them about how they can get jobs for their brothers-in-law.