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

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I often agree with the member on matters of governance when it comes to how Parliament must conduct itself.

I agree with everything he has said about how the Liberals have completely missed the point in the distinction between those members of cabinet that control crown assets and private members.

Given that, why would the member support the bill at all? To do so, would it not merely give cover to and lend credibility to the government on what is obviously just a poor attempt at this bait and switch that the member has discussed?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That was an excellent question from my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, and it puts me in a very difficult spot, because I wonder why I am supporting it too. I think the answer is because it looks good. I do not want to be seen as opposing transparency and apple pie, so of course I want to support it.

Do I think it will do anything positive for Canadian democracy? No. Do I think it misses the fundamental point about cash for access? Yes. Do I think it is a joke that the Liberals bait and switch and talk about how the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Jagmeet Singh should be treated just the same as cabinet ministers and prime ministers? Of course. However, I do not want to look like I am opposed to transparency and apple pie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on Friday in a lively debate here on Bill C-50, which would make changes to Canada's Election Act and is premised on political fundraising.

As my good friend and colleague from Calgary Shepard phrased it, this really is a Seinfeldian bill about nothing. It came as a result of inappropriate conduct by the government with respect to cash for access fundraisers, literally within minutes of forming government. I will speak for a few minutes on why that may seem astonishing to many people, since the Liberals had been out of a power for a decade. However, if we look at the people involved, we will see this is their modus operandi, cash for access. No wonder the Prime Minister and many minister hit the ground running after their election on #realchange.

Essentially, a read of the bill would result in the question of what the changes are. I guess it means that before hosting an event, somewhere in a prominent place on the Internet, the event must be published. Is that truly earth shattering? There are few other elements about what needs to be reported and what is disclosed. However, the main thrust is that now, buried on page 8 of the #realchange website, there is information on the event.

Clearly, the way the Prime Minister structured his affairs was that these fundraisers were happening almost right away. We have seen pictures of them, where the Prime Minister of Canada was helping to host or even preparing a meal for Chinese billionaires. It really caused some questions to be asked very early in this Parliament. Some of the same interests that helped organize or attend those fundraisers were also part of the Trudeau Foundation, named after the late prime minister.

There was some suggestion, because the Liberal government at first cancelled the monument to the Afghanistan war, that because of that Chinese support for the Trudeau Foundation, a statue Pierre Trudeau would be built before a monument to our Afghanistan veterans. It is shameful. I am glad the government then, after outrage, came forward with some sort of proposal, but it cancelled something I had announced as veterans minister, the location, as well as another monument to our Victoria Cross winners.

That was a series of events the Prime Minister and other ministers had replicating this cash for access for insiders, including some that had links with groups like Canada 2020. I am sure there are wonderful people in that organization. I like to describe it as, “What do the students from Queen's who are on the Queen's Liberal campus club do when they graduate? They join Canada 2020.” Now they run events in conjunction with the Prime Minister's office and have exclusive access. There is an inappropriate connection between the Prime Minister and that front group. We also see influence being extended through a number of these intimate cash for access dinners in which the Prime Minister engages.

Why are we not surprised by this conduct, despite language about being open and accountable in the Liberal election platform and in the Prime Minister's note to his ministers on accountability and being clear from even the perception of conflict of interest? The people running the Prime Minister's office, during their years at Queen's Park, in and around Ontario politics, set up the most elaborate cash for access scheme that Canadian politics had ever seen. Throughout the governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, there was a machine providing access for cash.

I will quote a few details contained in a great Globe and Mail article that I would suggest some members of the Liberal caucus peruse. I know they already are having concerns about the direction some of the minds in the PMO are forging.

The Globe and Mail reports that there were 159 intimate cash for access fundraisers with Premier Wynne just in a few years, with no disclosure or confirmation of who attended. Three of them were for $10,000 a ticket. In that period, the Liberals raised $20 million from the cash for access machine.

As we know from the first few weeks of debate in the House, Canadian taxpayers paid to move that machine from Toronto to Ottawa to run the Prime Minister's Office, and within weeks, he was attending these same-styled intimate cash for access dinners. It really took outrage from the House of Commons and Canadians for him to stop that, put a note on the website or advertise it, and those elements of their public relations campaign led to Bill C-50.

We have to look at what is expected when we talk about transparency and accountability. The government tosses those words around so cavalierly, but let us look at the record.

There is a report from the former ethics commissioner in the name of the Prime Minister. Her report reveals that the Prime Minister accepted a luxury gift from someone he casually knew 30 years prior. He describes him now as a friend. I am 45 and if I had not talked to a friend in 30 years, I might say I went to school with that person, but we were not BFFs. I am not sure if the Prime Minister is Facebook friends with the Aga Khan, but I do not see that a 30-year casual interaction at a funeral justifies a family friendship.

What was more scary in that report was the fact that the Prime Minister did not feel it was important because he was almost a ceremonial figure for the country. That is ludicrous. At the same time, the good organization run by the owner of that private island was lobbying the government for continued support for its programs. They are good programs, but that is in direct violation of the act, which the Ethics Commissioner said, four times. That is the first report in the Prime Minister's name. Another one is coming on lobbying from the cash for access dinners that I referenced at the beginning of my speech.

With respect to conflict of interest, for Canadians following this debate, there can be a real conflict of interest or the perception of one, which is why the Prime Minister, in his mandate letters, which he made great fanfare about releasing but now ignores routinely, says that ministers are supposed to be beyond even the appearance of conflict.

The finance minister, prior to running, was making advocacy speeches publicly to change pension legislation in Canada, while he had a large interest in a company that advises on making those changes. Then he introduced a bill in Parliament to do that, knowing full well that, at the very least, there would be a perception of a conflict of interest maybe. Am I being unreasonable? No, I am not.

I know the finance minister is an honourable man. He made a big mistake. He should express that and likely stay back. He should probably, as an hon. member of the House, step aside until the report on that bill is complete. That would live up to the lofty goals contained in the mandate letters of the Prime Minister. However, why should he do that when the Prime Minister has more investigations about him and refuses to account for the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an illegal trip. He is sending quite a signal to his caucus. He is saying that he wrote this in the ministers' mandate letters, but if they are following leadership by example, his example is to not be accountable.

We can have Bill C-50, we can have a ton of bills in the House, but if Liberals are not making decisions in the nation's interest that are showing they are clear from even the perception of conflict of interest, if they are not showing they are willing to take leadership and own up to mistakes, repay money, and step away from important portfolios while investigations are pending, the language in mandate letters is useless. It is just words.

I want to hear some accountability from these members. We do not want Canadians to see the cash for access scheme that led to 15 years of corruption and incompetence in Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall the days when Stephen Harper would fly off to British Columbia and go to a large barbeque with supporters. Off to the side would be a tent in which those who paid $1,000 would get the privilege of meeting with the prime minister and sharing some time. I suspect there might even have been some lobbying done there. What I see is potential hypocrisy coming from the other benches.

What is the legislation we are debating today? We are talking about ensuring that whether one is the prime minister, a cabinet minister, or the leader of the official opposition, when one meets with stakeholders, one has to declare their names. If someone gives more than $200, why not declare it? The Conservatives are saying that we do not need a law for it, but we do need a law for it, because the Conservatives disagree.

In a published story, the Conservatives' leader, whose party attacked the Liberal government for months for holding cash for access fundraisers, said that he would not post details of his own private fundraising events. One private fundraising event the article referred to was with real estate executives. The current leader said, “I'll continue to follow every single law that Elections Canada has on these types of issues.”

This law would ensure that there is more transparency and accountability on fundraising. Believe it or not, the leader of the official opposition does have some influence in modern-day politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member would stand up and compare the record of the Conservative Harper government to this one. In nine years, how many investigations of Stephen Harper were there by the Ethics Commissioner? There were zero. In less than two years, there have been two investigations by two separate officers of Parliament.

The Harpers would pay for tickets for flights if a family member came out. They would pay back some of the cost of groceries. Who was on that trip to the Aga Khan? There was the veterans minister and his partner, the president of the Liberal Party, and Canada 2020. This was a junket of epic proportions that showed judgment by the Prime Minister that is not fit for leadership. Then his wife asked for another trip. This is Liberal entitlement with a capital E. Then, it is unreasonable for us to ask him to pay the money back.

We hear these people read the same answers over and over. What took the Liberal Party of Chrétien over a decade to creep in, the entitlement and corruption, was in place within weeks with these guys. That is why we need change, and we need a Conservative government.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the lively debate we are having here, and my colleague's speech. I would like to hear him reflect on another important aspect of accountability and transparency, and that is when a prime minister promises something when he or she is a candidate that does not happen when he or she becomes prime minister.

Yesterday, we celebrated the first anniversary of the Prime Minister's broken promise to Canadians on electoral reform. Most Canadians thought that this was a key pillar of his election strategy. Most Canadians assumed that it was a big one, and that it was probably something he would follow through on should he win and become prime minister. Lo and behold, that is what happened. Then we went through almost a year, nine months, with a parliamentary committee, an expensive online survey, and a ministerial tour, and we were all encouraged to have town halls. Most of us thought we were still going in that direction.

In light of the conversation we just had about accountability and ethics, I wonder if my hon. colleague might reflect on that broken promise to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked a day of broken promises on electoral reform, and the Prime Minister blaming veterans for expecting him to keep his promise on lifetime pensions for all our injured veterans. This shows that the Liberals made calculated promises they knew they would break to get left-leaning voters from the NDP on electoral reform, and defence, veteran, and right-of-centre voters on veterans issues.

As I said in the House today, and I choose my words carefully, this shows a leader who is willing to either lie or be so willfully blind to the promises being made that he is prepared to say anything. I would like the Prime Minister to inform the House, and I do not use that word lightly, whether he did not cost these promises or did not think about electoral reform, or whether he chose to lie to Canadians to win the election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, during question period and right now, the member used a term he knows full well is not parliamentary. We can agree that Conservatives and Liberals at times will get into heated discussions, but I do not believe it is appropriate to start using unparliamentary language.

I would ask the member to rethink the use of the word, without trying to expand or hit a point on which I believe he is outright wrong.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Durham, the term “liar” was used, and it is an unparliamentary term. I will let the hon. member reply, and we will see what he has to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have thought a great deal about the use of that term. I have tried to use it within the context of a question, because I am not sure here. When a promise is made, and I am not suggesting the Prime Minister lied in this House or anything like that, but we certainly saw in an election campaign that a promise was made. The determination is either that the promise was made without full knowledge of the cost implications, and that is likely what it is, or it was made for political calculation, which would be a lie. I think it is the former, and I would like the Prime Minister, or perhaps the veterans affairs minister, to clarify that for me.

I do not use that word lightly. However, when I was the veterans affairs minister and I was trying to deal with families struggling with losing faith in the Government of Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, I said that the biggest thing we owe veterans is the truth and to work with them on making progress. I am being very judicious with the decision, and perhaps a ruling on this might be in order.

If I offer this as a question with two alternatives, it really is up to the Prime Minister to determine or confirm which alternative is correct. At that time, if there would be an acknowledgement that they did not cost the full lifetime pension promise, did not look at its implementation or its impact on people, I would certainly withdraw the language I suggested as the alternative. However, this is such a passionate subject for me personally and for veterans, and I know my friend from Barrie feels the same way. I would like a determination on whether posing it in this way, giving the Prime Minister and the veterans affairs minister a choice, allows me to remain within the parliamentary rules. I certainly have respect for this House. I certainly have respect for the deputy House leader. However, this is part of responsibility in public life.

We can get passionate about pipelines and a whole range of issues, but unlike some issues, benefits and payments to injured veterans affects families. This is bigger than a lot of debates we have in this place, and perhaps why, if we do take the sacred obligation we have to our veterans, we should be very precise with our language.

Mr. Speaker, if I am found to be playing too close to the line here by offering it as a choice, if that is your determination, I will apologize to this House. I did give very careful thought about how I have used these terms and how I have presented it for them to respond. Holding a press conference a couple of days before Christmas, after the House rose, and suggesting they did not break their promise is not fair to this House, and it is not fair to veterans or their families across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I will look to your honourable guidance with respect to this question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We will start with the hon. parliamentary secretary and then go to the member for Hull—Aylmer on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at Beauchesne's sixth edition and at what is parliamentary and what is not parliamentary, we would find a very clear statement.

A word in itself is not necessarily determined as being parliamentary or unparliamentary because of the word itself. It is the context in which it is said. The context in which the member said it, whether it was right now or during question period, was that it was meant to try to provoke all sorts of reactions from other members of the chamber. It was to promote unhealthy decorum inside the House of Commons. That is the manner in which he used the word. The member is trying to twist it around to make it look as if the Government of Canada has done something wrong. I give him full merit in terms of his ability to try to communicate a false message. However, by trying to incorporate a word that by nature is unparliamentary, that will be listed as unparliamentary, and then arguing that because of the context, it was to contrast, and now it is up to the Speaker, what the member is really trying to do is re-emphasize a question he asked earlier today.

There was a response from the minister. I would suggest that the minister was right and the member was wrong, and he should accept the answer and recognize that the way he used the word was unparliamentary.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If you do not mind, I am going to go to the member for Hull—Aylmer, and then I will speak to this. This is going a little longer than we anticipated.

The hon. member for Hull--Aylmer, please.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to raise this point of order. It is the same point of order my colleague from Winnipeg raised.

I have come to know the member for Durham well since my election in 2015. I consider the member an honourable member. Regardless of the context, I would certainly suggest, out of respect for the House, that the member would want to withdraw that word. I am certain that there are other ways he could make his point without skating so close to the line. The hon. member, as I indicated, has a distinguished history in the House, and I am certain he would not want to impugn another hon. member in the House, in this case the right hon. member for Papineau, by using that word, which I am not even going to employ.

Out of courtesy and out of respect, I would ask the hon. member to make it patently clear that he will withdraw that message and would allow him to make, in his inimitable and usually very erudite way, his point without employing words that even come close to skating to the line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would refer to Section 491 of Beauchesne's, which says, “No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable.” It is the context.

What I might suggest is a compromise. The member for Hull—Aylmer is probably one of my favourite members on that side. He is a good friend. Perhaps this might change it. I would like clarity here. If this was not an issue that I lived and breathed and bleed about, I would not be phrasing it with a choice for the Prime Minister to make. That is how I am phrasing it, and maybe those members do not like it.

Perhaps the framework would be that the promise was made when there were no members of the House, because the House of Commons was dissolved. A collection of Liberal candidates in the last general election made a promise with respect to lifetime veteran pensions. That was either one of two things. It was either in the context of a campaign, when the House of Commons was dissolved and there were no hon. members at that time. In the context of that campaign, it was either an un-costed, not properly researched promise, or a political calculation, which now appears to be a lie. I do not like using that word. I hoped I would never have to use it. I am using it, because that is what has happened as a result of that promise.

I look for direction. If I am wrong, I will withdraw and apologize. However, it is not absolutely clear to me if it is presented in that way, or perhaps the compromise would be that the House was not in session, and it was a collection of candidates,

It is important enough that I would like your clarity on it, Mr. Speaker.