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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are 11 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-50.

Motions Nos. 1 to 11 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill and these amendments. As a member of a political party and a member of Parliament, I certainly understand the importance of fundraising for our ability to campaign. Without it, we certainly could not carry out the activities that we do for our campaigns and our political parties.

However, there is certainly a difference between fundraising by asking supporters or friends to chip in $10 or $20, $50 maybe, to help buy some lawn signs or pamphlets to distribute door to door, and, for example, a swanky $500-a-plate dinner at a law firm attended by top Bay Street lawyers, with the Minister of Justice as the special guest. I cannot imagine how the Liberals cannot see the issue of lawyers being able to buy access to the Minister of Justice, for example.

That is exactly what was happening before the Liberals hastily introduced this bill. They were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and had to scramble to come up with an excuse. Bill C-50, or as I have called it in the past, the “got caught with my hand in the cookie jar so I am blaming the cookie jar” act, is their excuse. This is what they are using as their cover. They have broken their own pledge of having an open and accountable government. The legislation that has been introduced is certainly incredibly underwhelming.

In a document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, one of the general principles listed for ministers and parliamentary secretaries when fundraising and dealing with lobbyists states, “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.” That is a pretty clear statement. Who was that document signed by? It was signed by none other than the Prime Minister himself. This is hardly shocking to Canadians, as this government is well known for being all talk with, at best, very little action.

Apart from explicitly stating that there is to be no preferential access to government by people who have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties, the document also clearly states that there should be no appearance of that. “Appearance” is a word that I am sure the Liberal government is quite familiar with. Does having a $500-a-plate fundraiser at a Bay Street law firm, attended by the justice minister, pass the appearance test? I would say it does not.

Does having Chinese nationals with business interests in Canada attend a Liberal fundraiser with the Prime Minister and then provide six-figure donations to the Trudeau Foundation pass the appearance test? I would say no.

Does the Prime Minister vacationing on a billionaire's private island in the Bahamas, a billionaire who heads an organization that actively lobbies the government, pass the appearance test? I think I know the answer to that one, too, and it is no. It did not just fail the appearance test; it also failed the Ethics Commissioner's test, and the Prime Minister became the first one to have broken ethics laws. For the record, there are many ways to have a vacation on a private island that do not require selling access to the government. By all means, if that is the lifestyle that the Prime Minister likes to enjoy, I can certainly connect him with a number of travel agents across the country who could help him with his next trip.

However, let us get back to the serious issue at hand, which is simply this. How can Canadians trust a government that pledges to take accountability seriously and then fails its own appearance test at every single turn?

In an attempt to change the channel, Bill C-50 was introduced. It is like letting the foxes guard the henhouse. The Prime Minister is supposed to lead by example, but if his cabinet ministers see him enjoying a vacation on the private island of someone who lobbies the government, they probably think to themselves that there is nothing wrong with fundraisers attended by people who are going to lobby them. Therefore, it is no surprise that this bill was introduced.

There is only one thing this bill would do. It would bring these fundraisers into the open. The bill would not end the question about how appropriate it is for ministers of the crown or even the Prime Minister himself to attend fundraisers where they are being lobbied. No, it would not do that at all. The bill would simply move it into the public eye. Again, it is about appearance.

At least the bill would fulfill one aspect of the “Open and Accountable Government” document. The Liberals think that if the public can see it, everything is just fine. That is the logic they are going on. However, let us be clear. Cash for access does not become ethical simply because it is conducted in public. The Liberals should not need rules or laws to know that cash for access is unethical. That should simply be clear. There should not be a need for any rules or laws to make it clear.

Special interest groups and lobbyists should not have preferential access to very powerful figures simply because they can afford $1,500 for a fundraiser ticket. To the Liberals, bringing these fundraisers into the public eye is enough, but is it really? Have we come to expect so little of our government that simply doing the bare minimum, simply having the appearance of doing the right thing, is acceptable?

Someone once said this:

Most of all, we defeated the idea that Canadians should be satisfied with less, that good enough is good enough and that better just isn’t possible. Well, my friends, this is Canada, and in Canada better is always possible.

Who said that? It was none other than the Prime Minister himself, on election night in 2015.

Well, if better is always possible, according to the Prime Minister, then we need to do better than this bill, to be more accountable to Canadians. Certainly the Liberals need to do better.

Better does not mean a PR stunt where the actual issue is not addressed. Again, that is what Canadians have come to expect from this Liberal government: PR stunts that give the appearance of something being done, but in reality nothing changes. In this case, which is one of many examples, wealthy lobbyists will still be able to gain access to the Prime Minister and to senior cabinet ministers by simply buying a ticket for a fundraiser. That is what they have to do, put out a little cash and get some access. The Liberal government has missed a great opportunity to address this issue. Instead, the Liberals have chosen to duck and hide.

There is a very simple solution to this. If the Liberals would just take a moment to listen to the opposition, we can fix this. The Liberals should simply follow their own guidelines and stop attending these fundraisers, and that includes the Prime Minister. That is all it would take. We do not need a piece of legislation to figure that out. It is common sense.

By attempting to pass this underwhelming legislation, all the Liberals are doing is ensuring that the Prime Minister gets to continue to charge $1,500 for wealthy and connected insiders to meet him and discuss government business. Perhaps they meet him and then make big donations to the Prime Minister's family foundation.

At this point, one thing is clear. The Prime Minister does not believe that the rules should apply to him. A new law would not make the Prime Minister's cash for access fundraisers ethical. He does not respect even the laws we have now. What in the world would make us think that he would respect this law?

The Prime Minister knew that the vacation he took was not allowed, yet he did it anyway. Then he just apologized because he was caught. Clearly, the Prime Minister believes that these laws are meant only for regular Canadians and not for him. That is why we have an issue with this bill. It is simply a PR stunt designed to cover up the fact that the Liberals are engaged in unethical behaviour, and it does not do anything to actually address the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the member's party is not interested in improving openness and transparency in fundraising. I am curious about one thing, though. Given his party's new-found esteem for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, I wonder if he might find it interesting that she said, “I support the direction of this proposed legislation. As I've said on previous occasions, transparency is important for any kind of regime that touches on conflict of interest.” She went on to say, “The amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed by Bill C-50 promote transparency with respect to fundraising activities.”

Additionally puzzling is that the opposition party's leader first concealed the fact that he had held a private fundraiser. Later, when presented with evidence about that fundraiser, he said that he should not be held to the same standard of transparency as the Prime Minister, when in fact one must presume that he aspires to be prime minister one day.

Could the member explain why, in light of these revelations, his party is not in favour of openness and transparency in fundraising?

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

Madam Speaker, actually, we are the ones talking about the need for openness and transparency, but we have a government that simply thinks it will throw this out in the open and do it in public but still take the cash for access. Does that somehow make it ethical? In what world does that meet the smell test? It certainly does not.

I have lots of constituents in my riding who would love the opportunity to tell the Prime Minister exactly how they feel about certain pieces of legislation. What do they have to do? I guess they go and pay $1,500 to the Liberal Party. Then they get to attend a fundraiser with him and can give their ideas there. That is what the government is telling them.

The Liberals say it is okay because they would let it be known when the fundraiser is going to occur and put it on a website somewhere, and that would make it all better. However, they would still take the cash for access, no problem. In what world does that make any sense? It sounds to me like just a PR stunt. That is all it is.

Why do they not actually start following the rules that are already in existence? They do not need to create new laws, just follow the rules that exist. They should follow the guidelines they put out for themselves. Does the Prime Minister believe that there should be one set of rules for everyone else and a different set for him and his cabinet? They know better than that.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it would be one thing if the Conservative Party of Canada had a completely unblemished record on the matter of fundraising, but of course this is the party with the record of in-and-out scandals, of robocalls, of taking illegal contributions, and my hon. colleague knows that.

However, let us assume for a moment that there has been an epiphany, a turning of the leaf. Why did they not act in the face of those scandals to introduce legislation, as this government is doing? Through the passage of this legislation, fundraising events would be published with more notice, contributions over $200 would be disclosed in a timely manner to Elections Canada, and everyone, including the press, would be welcome to attend.

Does anyone think that under the last administration a fundraising event hosted by the Conservative Party of Canada would see the press attend? I do not think so. Does my hon. colleague agree?

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

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to stand and be proud of a piece of legislation that is simply a PR stunt, I guess that is up to him. If I were him, I would be much prouder to stand up and say that we are actually going to fix the problem. However, they are not doing that. They are simply saying that they would put this on a website somewhere and people would know when it would occur. That is all wonderful.

He mentioned the media being invited. There are a few media members who might disagree with that, because they were told to get the heck out of the room on some of these occasions, but that is another story. It is all out there. They can check that out for themselves.

What this boils down to is that we have a Prime Minister who does not want to follow the rules that already exist. He does not want to follow the laws. We already discovered that. He has now broken four of them. Why does he not just start by following the rules? We do not need to have a piece of legislation that says that we will put this on a website somewhere. Let us actually see the Liberals stop taking cash for access and start following their own rules. There is no one set of rules for everyone else and another for the Prime Minister and the cabinet. They should be treated the same as everyone else. It is time for the Prime Minister to wake up and figure that out.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I recognize the next speaker, unfortunately there will have to be an interruption for question period. There will be a little time remaining after question period.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

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

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-50, a piece of legislation introduced by our government to amend the Canada Elections Act and improve the transparency of political financing.

As all colleagues in the House can agree, political fundraising is a key element in our Canadian democratic process. Political parties must fundraise for nearly all aspects of their operations, everything from basic day-to-day functioning to political campaigns during elections. I would like to respectfully remind the House that the existing regulations around fundraising in Canada are among the strongest in the world. These existing regulations include strict spending limits, a cap on annual donations, and an outright banning of corporate and union donations.

However, our government wants to ensure that transparency is at the heart of this new legislation, which is why Bill C-50, if passed, would legislate the following. It would make public all fundraising events involving the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders, and leadership contestants of parties with a seat in the House of Commons, when over $200 a person is necessary to attend an event.

Information about such activities will have to be posted on the political party's website at least five days before the event.

It would also require political parties to report a list of attendees to Elections Canada within 30 days after the event.

Finally, technical amendments will be made in order to harmonize the rules applicable to nomination and leadership race expenses and those related to candidates' election expenses.

This legislation would account for certain privacy considerations involving the disclosure of the names of youth under 18, volunteers, event staff, media, support staff for those with a disability, and those supporting a minister or a party leader in attendance such as security personnel. These would all be exceptions to the requirement to disclose their names on party websites.

Before I discuss Bill C-50 in detail, I would like to address the motion of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that is at report stage. The member's motion asked the House to delete clause 4 of the bill. I was disappointed to see this motion put forward because clause 4 enacts a direct recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report after the last election.

In his report, the former Chief electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, noted that:

...the definitions of “leadership campaign expense” and “nomination campaign expense” are problematic in that they do not include expenses incurred outside the contest period, even if the goods or services are used during the contest. Nor do these expenses include non-monetary contributions or transfers. This has consequences for the coherence of the political financing regime applicable to leadership and nomination contestants.

It is the implementation of this recommendation, recommendation A36 of the CEO report, that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would like to see eliminated from Bill C-50. That recommendation is to “make leadership and nomination financial transactions fully transparent and the political financing regime applicable to contestants more coherent.”

What is even more confusing is that this recommendation from the former Chief Electoral Officer received all-party support at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, leaving us all wondering whether the member checked with his NDP colleague on that committee before putting his curious motion forward.

Our government has set forth legislation that would increase transparency in fundraising in a balanced and efficient manner, and that is Bill C-50.

I would like to turn to the evidence that we heard at committee.

During his appearance before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the current acting Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault, stated:

...I note that the bill offers a calibrated approach. Not all parties will be subject to the new requirements and I believe that is a good thing. Similarly, the rules will not apply to all fundraising activities, but only those for which a minimum amount is charged to attend and where key decision-makers are also present.

Mr. Perrault went on to say:

There is also an important exception for party conventions, including leadership conventions, except where a fundraising activity takes place within the convention. The convention itself is exempted, but if there's a fundraiser that meets all the conditions within the convention, then that is caught by the new rules. Again, this reflects a concern to achieve a proper balance and I think it is wise.

Later in his testimony, Mr. Perrault stated:

Generally speaking, the bill increases the transparency of political fundraising, which is one of the main goals of the Canada Elections Act. It does so without imposing an unnecessary burden on the smaller parties that are not represented in the House of Commons or for fundraising events that do not involve key decision-makers.

When asked if he felt that Bill C-50 captured the right political entities for disclosure, Mr. Perrault said, “It captures a number of key decision-makers, and it doesn't capture, by contrast...people who are not key decision-makers”.

He went on to say:

This bill is carefully drafted. It avoids some of the traps we've seen elsewhere.... I would say only that it increases transparency, that it's calibrated, and that I can administer this piece of legislation, with some improvements.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member will have four and a half minutes to complete his speech when the House next deals with this subject matter.

The House resumed from consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Elections Act

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions has four and a half minutes remaining in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we left off before the welcome and scintillating interruption of question period, I was talking about the comments of acting Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meeting on Bill C-50. It is quite clear from Mr. Perrault's testimony at committee that he felt Bill C-50 is accomplishing the goal that it set out to do, which is to make political financing more transparent for Canadians.

Last fall, I wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, regarding his own fundraising activities. I wrote to him after reports surfaced that he was refusing to disclose his own fundraisers and keeping his fundraising activities hidden from Canadians. What was deeply concerning was that his party's senior spokesperson initially denied that the Leader of the Opposition had attended a private fundraiser, but after being presented with evidence to the contrary, the Conservative Party of Canada finally acknowledged that its leader had in fact held a private fundraiser.

It was, frankly, astounding that his initial defence to this was to state that he does not believe he should be held to the same standard as the Prime Minister. I felt obliged, in the letter, to remind him that he is also a public office holder and aspires to be Prime Minister and, as the leader of a party, he has the responsibility to uphold the highest of standards. To date, I have not received a reply to my letter. No pen pal is he. On this side of the House, we are deeply disappointed that the official opposition does not feel the need to support this legislation, when it claims to value openness and transparency in political fundraising.

Regrettably, it is not just the Conservatives who are refusing to be open and transparent about their fundraising. The new NDP leader is also refusing to disclose higher-value fundraisers that he attends. We know that he attended such fundraisers when he was a candidate for leadership, but now will not follow the Liberal Party's open and transparent example.

In addition to Bill C-50, the Minister of Democratic Institutions is working diligently to ensure that more Canadians have the ability to exercise their right to vote. We are expanding the voting franchise to more Canadians by reversing elements of the previous government's so-called Fair Elections Act, which actually made voting more difficult and resulted in fewer Canadians getting to the polls.

If passed, this bill will enable Canadians to vote more easily and in greater numbers while strengthening the integrity of our electoral system and people’s trust in that system.

The issue of cybersecurity has never been more important. In accordance with her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Democratic Institutions presented a threat assessment from the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, to analyze the risks to Canada's political and electoral activities from hackers.

The Minister of Democratic Institutions also has a mandate to bring forward options to create an independent commission or commissioner to organize political party leaders' debates during future federal elections. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently studying this and has gathered valuable feedback from witnesses and stakeholders with interest and expertise in this aspect of Canadian democracy. The Minister of Democratic Institutions shared her own views on this important issue with the committee last fall. Additionally, the minister and I recently completed a cross-Canada tour to meet with stakeholders to hear their thoughts on how a commission or commissioner could be established to organize federal leaders' debates.

We also invite all Canadians to share their views on the future of leaders' debates in Canada by visiting the Democratic Institutions website by February 9, 2018.

Be assured that our government, this minister, and I will never stop working to further protect, strengthen, and improve our democracy, which I hope will be with the help of all members of the House, and to acknowledge that better is always possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that speech reminded me of one of my favourite Fleetwood Mac songs.

The member said that voter turnout went down after the Fair Elections Act was brought in. Maybe the member knows that the turnout in 2011 was 61.4%. Voter turnout in the 2015 election was 68.5%, a more than 7% increase. When it comes to giving speeches and relating facts in speeches, I would agree with the member that better is always possible.

He said that the leader of the official opposition should follow rules that the Prime Minister does not follow and never has. I would ask the member if he thinks it is reasonable for ministers to attend private fundraisers with the stakeholders they regulate, a minister of justice attending a fundraising with aspirants to the bench, for example. Is it reasonable for ministers to do that, or should the ministers only do fundraising events outside of the context of private meetings with stakeholders?

Under the rules in the proposed legislation, the Prime Minister and ministers would still, and very much seem to intend to, continue with those kinds of fundraisers.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his great question and attention to this matter.

Of course, I must agree that voter turnout did increase in 2015, as Canadians were greatly motivated for a change in government and turned out in wonderful numbers. Sadly, the turnout among certain marginalized groups did in fact fall due to some undemocratic elements of the unfair elections act.

In response to his other question, we are taking concrete actions through this bill to improve our already strong and robust rules around political fundraising. For many Canadians, contributing to a political party and attending a fundraising event is an important form of democratic expression, and we are pleased to be able to debate this important piece of legislation in the House.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure my friend heard the previous question, which is strange because I thought it was pretty straightforward.

When a minister of the crown, justice minister or finance minister, holds a fundraiser and people who have business with the government attend that fundraiser, people who have certain aspirations with that particular minister and that minister's office, while Bill C-50 has improvements on transparency, it would do nothing to prevent that activity. Therefore, the finance minister could continue to meet with Bay Street executives and raise money from them. The justice minister could continue to meet with lawyers who are seeking appointment to the bench and raise money from them. The Prime Minister can meet with people, or vacation on their islands from time to time, who have direct dealings with the government under this proposed legislation. That stays perfectly fine.

The member might wish to address that. If he is comfortable with it, then he should just simply say so. If he is not, then why did the Liberals not address it in the bill?

My specific question is on clause 4 of the proposed legislation, which has a loophole that would allow anyone who is donating to any of the parties to show up at conventions, drop $1,550 at the convention, and simply not be reported publicly. It seems like a loophole the Liberals would want to close. We tried to. We are trying to do it now at report stage.

Does my friend not agree that, first, ministers should not have that conflict of interest through their fundraising activities; and second, that this glaring limo-loophole that the Liberals baked into this proposed legislation should be closed?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my friend for Skeena—Bulkley Valley described in his question the state of political fundraisers as they have been for many successive governments over many years. It is important that with Bill C-50 we are improving on that. We are making it much better. We are taking concrete action to improve our already strong and robust rules around political fundraising. However, as I said before, contributing to political parties and attending fundraising events is an important part of democratic expression for Canadians.

With regard to the proposed amendment at report stage to delete clause 4, that is actually the implementation of one of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations, A36 I believe, which would increase transparency and openness in our fundraising regime.

I welcome the member's comments and hard work, and I look forward to working with him as we pass Bill C-50.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy this debate because a lot of Canadians look toward elected office, toward politics, and sometimes they have to then look away again, because some of the activities, both in reality and that portrayed through movies and such, do not accurately reflect what many of us are trying to do in politics, which is to simply represent people to the best of our ability.

The timing of Bill C-50 was interesting. It landed just after the Liberals broke their promise on electoral reform. We all remember it well because the Prime Minister repeated it so often before, during, and after the last election that 2015 was going to be the last election under first past the post.

Just a few days ago, he gave an interview here in the Library of Parliament to the CBC where he said, “Nobody was able to convince me”. Not all of the experts, not the tens of thousands of Canadians were able to personally convince him that what all the evidence pointed toward was a good thing for Canada. In his not humble opinion of himself, he needed that convincing that none of the evidence was enough on changing our system and evolving it into the 21st century. The timing of the bill was interesting.

We also see within Bill C-50, which is broadly-speaking supported by my colleagues, myself, and the New Democrats in terms of the listing of donors beyond $200. It is subjecting the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders, and those aspiring to become party leaders to a higher level of disclosure.

Of course, all of this comes about because of Liberal fundraisers. The idea of the bill was borne out of the crisis of Liberal cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister himself holding secret fundraisers in private homes of billionaires and millionaires, where there was no accountability at all. The justice minister and finance minister were actually holding meetings that were fundraisers, $1,000, $1,500 to get in the door, and the people being invited to these meetings had direct dealings with these cabinet minister's departments. Just screaming conflict of interest all over the place.

The fact that the Prime Minister was then later found to have broken four of our ethical rules of Parliament by accepting a trip with the Aga Khan, who the Government of Canada has had long dealings with, showed a moral and ethical code that was completely warped within the Liberal leadership. My grandmother used to say, “Don't ever waste a good crisis”. If there is a problem, do not just simply have the crisis and then forget about it, and Bill C-50 is the result of Liberals going through the very public and political exposure of their ethical compass being totally off from what most ordinary Canadians would see as right behaviour.

The Minister of Justice should never, ever be accepting donations of any kind from lawyers who are also on the list of joining the bench. Why? Because it is the Justice Minister who is ultimately going to approve their ascension to that bench and become a judge. It seems obvious to me and to most people who have that kind of ethical core, but it was not obvious to the Liberals.

The finance minister should not be meeting with Bay Street executives, and accepting large donations from the very same people over which he is the regulator. He is the ref. He is the one who is supposed to be making it fair for everyone, not just those who can pay the $1,500 and get into his private fundraiser. However, Liberals did not see a problem with this.

The Prime Minister was holding private fundraisers in the homes of wealthy billionaires, so that millionaires could show up and give him $1,550, and then have dealings with some of their very specific issues that went ahead.

All of this was borne out of the Liberals, and this is not easy to do all the time. They were embarrassed. It is not always easy to embarrass a Liberal, but it happened. The result of this is Bill C-50, which says we now have to publicly declare who is showing up. Wait, the Liberals wanted to leave themselves a loophole, the Laurier Club loophole. If people donate to the Liberal Party to the maximum amount, particularly at a convention, under the bill their names do not appear. How fortunate is that, that the five-day declaration that exists under Bill C-50, if the maximum donation to the Liberal Party is made at the convention, then people do not have to worry about it.

The only filings that come out are the filings that come out right now which is when end of the year reporting happens. All of this transparency stops right at the door of the Laurier Club, this special donor elite club that the Liberals have set up to make sure the money keeps coming in from their top donors. We tried to close it. As New Democrats, we do not just want to oppose, we want to propose.

We asked why they put this loophole in. It accomplishes nothing. It does not help in terms of transparency, and it seems to be almost handwritten by the chief Liberal fundraiser to say, “Do not embarrass anybody by having to put them on a public list when they show up at our conventions as Liberals, and donate the maximum amounts.” We said to fix this.

We also said to allow the Chief Electoral Officer investigative powers. It seems about right that the person who guides our elections, and tries to make sure our elections are done fairly should have investigative powers. We moved amendments to allow that to happen.

In fact, we heard from a former Chief Electoral Officer about the $1,000 penalty that exists within this bill that was done away in the nineties. It was seen as a non-deterrent, because there are large incentives to do these sketchy fundraisers, as the Liberals have proven. A person can make a lot of money. If there were a penalty on it, one would think the penalty would be more than $1,000, which is far less than the maximum donation someone could make at these potentially illegal fundraising events.

Through all of this, we see the intention of the government. We see that the Liberals want to bring more openness to these private, very exclusive fundraisers, where people in some cases are giving a great deal of money. We welcome that.

We would like the Liberals to show a little of that contrition that is so hard to find around here, and to acknowledge that it was borne out of the controversy surrounding the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet who were engaging in fundraisers that were suspicious, at best, if not unethical. We would also like the Liberals to acknowledge the central problem.

What Canadians, and specifically the people who I represent in northern British Columbia, say is that there should not be privileged access for those who have money. The wealthy and the well-connected should not simply get FaceTime with the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, who have so much power under our system, simply because they are rich. Yet, this bill maintains all of that.

Nothing is actually done about the elephant in the room walking around, which is if someone is loaded, he or she can get personal one-on-one time with the Prime Minister, and virtually anyone in his cabinet, to move agendas forward, to say he or she knows the person, and use that for their own personal advantage. That is all maintained. None of that so-called tradition is threatened at all by this. We wondered just how far the Liberals were willing to go, and we found out.

Bill C-50 aims to address certain aspects of the problem of rather unethical donations. The Liberals have made an effort. We will support most of the elements of this bill, but there are some things that need improvement, going by the testimony we heard in committee. The Liberals, however, have ignored and rejected every amendment proposed by the NDP to improve their bill. That is that party’s new attitude, now that they are in government. When they were in opposition, it was different.

In conclusion, the aspects of Bill C-50, on the whole, accomplish a stepping up of transparency. The concern we have is with regard to cash for access, that tradition where if one has a lot of money, one will get personal time with the Prime Minister. The Liberals will now jump up and say, “Oh, but he does town halls.” Congratulations. We all do town halls. Good for him. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, the Liberals still have the tendency where if someone has a lot of money, he or she does not have to line up for a town hall to sit in the crowd, and maybe ask a question. If one has $1,550 to donate to the Liberal Party, then the Liberals will get that person FaceTime and that sacred selfie, and make sure he or she has time with whichever minister is chosen, right up to the Prime Minister.

The Liberals maintain that practice, and they allow a loophole in this bill, which they are well aware of, that will make these very large donations not be transparent if they take place at a Liberal convention. That is a missed opportunity. However, like so many opportunities when it comes to ethical behaviour, the Liberals are only too happy to sit on their hands and miss them.

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

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that after the last election in 2015, then Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand produced a report. That report was characterized by a number of recommendations on how we might do better in this place.

One recommendation, A36, of the report said we should “make leadership and nomination financial transactions fully transparent and the political financing regime applicable to contestants more coherent.” That recommendation, A36, is implemented in Bill C-50 in clause 4.

However, in a puzzling motion that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley put on the floor, the implementation of recommendation A36 would be deleted. What is even more puzzling is that members from all parties of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs unanimously supported the recommendation from CEO Marc Mayrand.

Could the member help us understand why he would like to eliminate from Bill C-50 the implementation of the CEO's recommendation around transparency?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that our amendment would strike out the clause which allows the Liberal Party to continue to fundraise in secret essentially, as long as it takes place at a convention.

We have asked a number of Liberals, both at committee and here in the House, why we have this loophole. I have yet to hear from my friend, the parliamentary secretary or any other Liberal, the rationale for why, if a donation is sent to the Liberal Party in a cheque for $1,550, or they show up at an event, that is made public, but if that event takes place at the Liberal convention, then it is not made public. It makes no sense.

The exercise is the same. If they are trying to be transparent, then be transparent. We know many of the top level Liberal donors choose to make their donations at the Liberal Party convention for various reasons, and one of them is if they are members of the Laurier Club, they get private time with the Prime Minister. That is convenient. Again, cash for access is the problem.

This goes toward moving some transparency to the issue, but the Liberals keep loopholes in place that make no sense at all and have no justification. Not once have I heard a Liberal member be able to defend it. At some point they are going to have to square that circle, probably well after this bill is passed into law.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his speech, and for reminding us of this horrific, for me particularly and for many Canadians, anniversary of the February 1 breaking of the promise on electoral reform. I will have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-50 in a few moments, so forgive me for asking a question on electoral reform of my colleague.

The Prime Minister says that no one was able to convince him. I have been racking my brains. I know this issue well, and I know the Prime Minister well. I do not know of a single person who was ever given the opportunity to try to convince him, an opportunity to sit down and listen to the evidence, have it presented to him.

Does my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley know of any opportunities that were afforded either to members of his party or any other experts, or anyone at all? If we failed to convince him, I would like to have thought we had a chance.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the quotes from the Prime Minister today are rather astounding.

It is revelatory for me and for many others, that lo and behold, through all of the conversations that went on for months, the tens of thousands of Canadians participating in town halls, online surveys, engaging in good faith with the electoral reform committee and parliamentarians, some of which were Liberal held events, where the majority came out saying they wanted proportional representation, that all of that conversation never got to the Prime Minister.

All the evidence that was brought forward from virtually every democratic expert we have in this country, and many of the leading global experts, showed that proportional representation leads to more women being elected, more diverse parliaments being elected, and better outcomes in terms of economic, environmental, and social legislation. All of that evidence never made its way to the Prime Minister's mind.

He somehow closed and cloistered himself off from this. That is his argument now. That, coupled with the fact that he felt it was his decision and his decision alone to make. That is just not true.

I do not know how Liberals actually maintain this. I know a number of my Liberal colleagues were greatly disturbed by the betrayal of the promise that was oft repeated by this Prime Minister and by them. It is just unfortunate. I think it is unbecoming, frankly, of a Prime Minister who is an intelligent person to suggest that he just simply was not convinced, that no single expert, no single Canadian was ever able to get through to his mind that the leading forms of voting that most of the successful democracies around the world employ would be somehow suitable for Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at report stage to deal with Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act in dealing with fundraising.

I had the opportunity before committee to attempt to make amendments to the bill. Certainly there was excellent testimony from many expert witnesses, particularly from our former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, of ways in which the bill could be strengthened.

The bill generally makes improvements. It is not that it is a bad bill; it is that there are lost opportunities here, particularly lost opportunities in closing those loopholes around what is now known as cash for access.

Let me speak to the bill, and then I will turn my attention to the fundamental problem we have in Canada when we talk about political fundraising. That is a more general conversation.

On Bill C-50, I put forward Green Party amendments and had them voted on, but unfortunately they were all defeated. They may be seen by some as relatively minor, but they matter. For example, one was mentioned by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I attempted to increase substantially the punishment for violating any of the provisions around notice, publicity, reporting, and so on. Section 500 of the act would be amended to create a penalty of not more than $1,000.

The evidence from Jean-Pierre Kingsley, our former chief electoral officer, was:

The $1,000 penalty for a summary conviction, I found to be low. The entities that would be charged are entities...that effectively have money or should pay more for that. I don't think there's anything left that's a penalty of $1,000 under the statute...we're certainly not talking about a deterrent. The deterrent of course is the summary conviction, but still there should be a penalty.

In the amendment I put forward, I hoped to see that if the party broke the rules, that it would be dealing with a penalty of twice the amount of what the party raised at that event. That would become a significant deterrent because it would undo all the damage of its event. The party would have to pay twice as much as was raised as a penalty.

I also, like the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, agree that it is a loophole in section 4 of the act. One does not have to report at all on fundraising and donations made in the course of a national convention. We know a lot of fundraising goes there and should be reported.

The bill certainly does not make things any worse. The problem with this, the notion of cash for access and the way it is described, is that until someone dubbed it cash for access and ascribed to it a label nobody would want, this is how political parties of all stripes have always raised money. The star performer, the leader of the party or someone else who is well-known in the party is someone people want to meet, comes to an event. That is the draw to get other people to show up and spend a lot of money. I usually like to joke that in the Green Party it is not so much that we have cash for access, it is that I show up in people's homes for potluck suppers, so our provisions are basically tofu for access.

The situation of political party financing makes setting up a series of rules that cover all eventuality, sort of a mug's game. I would rather attack this directly. When will we take the leap other countries have and eliminate private financing for political parties? I know that goes contrary to the direction of the previous government, which said it was getting rid of taxpayer funding for political parties but really did not. Taxpayers fund political parties to a great extent in our country. It is just not sufficient to meet the perceived needs of the parties, which is why they go forward and do all these other kinds of fundraising.

Our system of democracy would be cleaner and everything would be much more above board if it were a fair, impartial system of public financing. For those who might not know how taxpayers fund political parties, certainly everyone in this chamber knows, there are very generous rebates for the amount of money spent during an election campaign. If the party gets more than 10% per riding, it gets back 50% of what it spent. Nationally it gets back 60%.

For the party that spends the most on attack ads, for instance, in other words the party that annoys the Canadian public the most with attack ads during the Super Bowl, its rebate is the largest just because it spent the most. The biggest-spending parties get the most back from the Canadian public because that is our Elections Canada rebate rule.

What if we do not do that anymore? What if we say we will just provide a pot of money based on what we have seen on average over the last five elections that the Canadian public has spent on having those elections, what we actually gave to political parties, and develop a fair system of sharing that out? What if we did what England does, what Brazil does, and what many countries do and ban electronic advertising, radio and T.V. for political parties? That is the biggest ticket item in the spending budgets of most political parties during elections, to have money in the bank to run all those ads. What if television ads from political parties were not allowed, but every party was given non-profit, public broadcasting time on a fair and equal basis?

One thing about attack ads that we will never see is someone running for office doing his or her own ominous voice overs. The attack ad bread and butter is that so and so plans to steal babies, that it has been heard here, or so and so beats kittens or something loathsome like that. When people are on-screen, looking at the Canadian public, they do not say things like that. They say that they are standing there because they want to serve the people or their platforms are about people's lives, their families, and communities. They want to say the positive things when it is their own face.

Public funding and public provision of public interest broadcasting for political parties instead of paid advertisements would save the taxpayers a bundle because we would not be paying back for all that ad time in the proportions that political parties now receive under the Elections Act. We then could also look back at what the provisions were before former prime minister Stephen Harper reversed them.

The fairest and the least cost support of political parties from the public purse was always Jean Chrétien's innovation of the per vote subsidy. It is an incentive to vote, by the way. I have had people say to me over the years, when this existed, that they lived in a safe riding for the Grits or Tories, a party they did not want. Therefore, the only reason they voted was because they knew the $1.75 would go to the party for which they had voted. That amount changed eventually when the Harper administration killed it. I think it had gone up to $2 a vote, but it was $2 a year to the party that individuals voted for, directed by their votes.

We do not get to direct at all other taxpayer funding of political parties. The biggest one is the rebates for election spending. The second-biggest one is the rebate for the income tax deduction people get, which is so much more generous than donating to Oxfam, or Sierra Club or a church. All of their charitable giving to other organizations is never rebated at the highest level, but to give $400 to a political party costs people $100. Of course, it is obvious why the rules benefit political parties. They were written by people in this place to assist their parties.

Is it not time we pulled the plug on all of it, and not worry about whether someone is meeting with donors in someone's fancy house or meeting with people at a potluck supper? All of this is driven because we are not willing to bite the bullet and do for our democracy what is really required, which is to take the money out of it and allow the Canadian public, based on what we are already spending, to have election campaigns and funding for political parties directed by a fair and equitable formula.

Bill C-50 can only go as far as it can go. There is always going to be a loophole. We are always going to find out that somebody is a big enough draw that he or she will get donors in the room. Let us not forget that was why Senator Mike Duffy was appointed. He was a good fundraiser because people wanted to write the big cheques to go into the room to meet him. We need to think about what motivates our democracy and get the money out of it by going to the real root of the problem.

I ask my colleagues on that side of the House to bring back the per vote subsidy. It was fair and directed by the voter. Take big money out of politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her ongoing care and attention to democratic institutions in Canada.

I would like to dwell on the section of her remarks regarding conventions. Any fundraiser within a convention for which a person walks through a door and pays over $200 to spend time with the class of folks we already have identified would be captured by the new rules. Therefore, that kind of event is not exempt at a convention. What would be exempt under Bill C-50 is the kind of appreciation event for folks who have already paid a convention fee and will be present there.

To that, our acting chief electoral officer Stéphane Perrault said at PROC committee:

There is also an important exception for party conventions, including leadership conventions, except where a fundraising activity takes place within the convention. The convention itself is exempted, but if there's a fundraiser that meets all the conditions within the convention, then that is caught by the new rules. Again, this reflects a concern to achieve a proper balance and I think it is wise.

Could the member reflect on the CEO's statement that it does actually capture a good balance?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have read proposed section 4 over and over again. Perhaps it is bad drafting, which is a terrible thing to say at the point where we are at report stage. However, despite proposed subsection 3, a regulated fundraising event does not include any event that is part of a convention and is organized to express appreciation. Therefore, it could be organized to express appreciation, but that kind of event does indeed give access to key decision makers, which does not end up getting reported and is not open to the media.

Even after hearing the explanation from the acting chief electoral officer, which I have heard before, I am baffled by his position. Of course, I respect him, but in the context of what Bill C-50 is trying to deal with, special access for people with lots of money to key decision makers, the exemption for conventions does not sit right with me. I am hearing what my hon. colleague is saying, but I am not persuaded.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about missed opportunities in the legislation and the hidden costs that not many taxpayers were aware of when it came to financing political parties.

One of the other big loopholes is the fact that under our current legislation, there is no hard limit on the length a campaign can be. We all know from 2015, with its 78-day campaign and the changes that were made by the previous Conservative government, it ballooned the cost to taxpayers. Not only did the election cost $443 million, but it allowed parties to spend huge amounts more, therefore, getting even more tax breaks.

I proposed a private member's bill to put a hard cap on the length of elections. I would be curious to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on that, which is probably another missed opportunity the House could be looking at.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we also have another really important piece of electoral reform legislation that has received first reading in this place, but has not yet gone to committee, which is Bill C-33. It would do away with a lot of what was done under the previous administration's, what we called, the unfair elections act. It has a lot of really good provisions in it to bring back the rights of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with Canadians and educate Canadians. It has a really cool provision to allow young people at age 16 to be registered to vote, so they are already registered by the time they turn 18. I would love to see something in there, and we could go back to that when it gets to committee. What former Prime Minister Harper did in the unfair elections act was create, for the first time, additional money, depending on how long the writ lasted.

We had a very long writ period in 2005. My friends here with the memory will remember that on November 28, 2005, the Liberal government of Paul Martin fell, but the election was not until later in January. There was the feeling that between Christmas and Hanukkah there had to be some time allotted. However, that was in the days before we had additional spending limits during a writ period. Stephen Harper changed it so parties could get more money back by having a longer writ period. That election campaign went from August 3 to late October.

I agree entirely with my friend. I do not know that we want to put a hard cap on the length of an election. There may be reasons we would want to extend it, like if a government falls right before Christmas, as in the case of the November 28, 2005, fall of the government. However, we need to ensure that long writ periods are not an excuse to get more money from taxpayers because the game has already been rigged so parties can spend more money and get more money. The party that had the most money at the time engineered those changes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and debate the important pieces of legislation that come before us.

Before I do so, if the House will give me a brief indulgence, I would like to thank and congratulate everyone who was involved in yesterday's launch of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, now lovingly referred to as Bosc and Gagnon. Like all members, I spent last night going page by page through this exciting document. It was a real page-turner. I made it to page 1324, and I look forward to finishing the rest of it tonight. It is a great accomplishment.

[An hon. member]

Get a life.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

My colleague is telling me to get a life.

It is an excellent piece of work. I am thankful to all those involved. It will stand the test of time as an important document.

Let us go to the subject at hand, Bill C-50.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands briefly mentioned in her comments Bill C-33, and I was intrigued today in question period when the Minister of Democratic Institutions mentioned Bill C-33. In fact, I will quote her from the blues. She said, “My job is to strengthen and protect our democratic institutions and ensure they represent the values of Canadians. Through the introduction of Bill C-33 and Bill C-50, we are moving to accomplish that mandate.”

How important is Bill C-33 to the government? It received first reading on November 24, 2016, 14 months ago. Where is that bill today? It still sits at first reading, having never been brought forward for second reading. This is reflective of the entire government's legislative agenda. It introduces certain pieces of legislation to great fanfare, yet there they sit 14 months later, unmoved, at the same stage as they were when they were first introduced. This is reflective of the entire government's agenda, but most particularly of the democratic institutions' agenda.

Let us contrast that with our former Conservative government's agenda. The very first piece of legislation introduced in 2006 was Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. What did that do? It banned corporate donations and union donations, and placed a hard cap on the maximum that an individual could donate.

The Liberal government, in the introduction of Bill C-50, is simply trying to legitimize its cash for access events. It is trying to legitimize its pay-to-play events. It is trying to legitimize that which it should not have been doing in the first place, by its own rules and its own document “Open and Accountable Government”.

I would like to quote from this document. The prelude states:

Open and Accountable Government sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada’s system of responsible parliamentary government.

Under Annex B, “Fundraising and Dealing with Lobbyists: Best Practices for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries”, the very first paragraph states:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.

This legislation would not have been needed had the Prime Minister accepted his own words, and had he and his ministers followed their own document and simply done what they were asked to do.

It goes on to state:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.

On this specific point, the Liberal government, the Prime Minister, and his cabinet have failed to live up to the standards that the Prime Minister himself set in “Open and Accountable Government”. The Prime Minister laid out his vision. He promised to be open and transparent, and then the Liberals broke their own rules.

This is not the first time we have seen this. We have seen it time and time again over the two years this government has been in office. The Liberals are constantly placing themselves in the appearance or potential of conflict of interest. All week in this House we have heard questions asking the Prime Minister and the government House leader about the Prime Minister's unethical trip to the Aga Khan's island, for which he was found guilty on four separate counts under the Conflict of Interest Act.

The government, in only two short years, is achieving a level of ethics lapses that took the Chrétien-Martin Liberals a full 13 years to get to. It has accomplished that in two years.

Let us talk about this piece of legislation and some of the exemptions and exceptions that the government has brought forward in Bill C-50. There is one particular exception, what I like to call the Laurier Club loophole. This legislation applies to donor appreciation events, except when those events take place at conventions.

People may be wondering, what exactly is the Laurier Club? I have an answer. I went on the Liberal Party's website and found a little information about it. For the low price of $1,500 a year, anyone can become a member of the Laurier Club.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Wow, where do I sign up?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe people can sign up on the Liberal Party website.

What do people get for becoming members of the Laurier Club? They get this: “Invitations to Laurier Club events across the country, hearing from leading voices on our Liberal team”. They get access to senior members of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government. In fact, there is a Laurier Club event tonight in Edmonton. For those who are interested, I am sure there is still time to register for that event. My colleague from Edmonton West says that perhaps both Edmonton Liberals will show up at that event.

I find this interesting. Just last week, the chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence tweeted about the convention the Liberal Party is having later this year in Halifax. She said, “if there was a time to join Laurier Club, now is the time”. She was highlighting the Liberal convention.

I am sure we could all read different options into that, but I believe the testament there is very much that if people want to meet senior Liberals, they should join the Laurier Club and attend the national convention, and they will have access to senior decision-makers within the Liberal Party of Canada. That is accepted. It is exempted from this piece of legislation. The Laurier Club loophole allows that to happen.

There is another exception in this piece of legislation. I like to call this exception the Joe Volpe clause. It prohibits the publication of names of people under the age of 18. I know that all members of this House recall the 2006 Liberal leadership race and Joe Volpe's endeavours to raise money, including from those who were 11 years of age. In honour of Mr. Volpe, we should refer to that clause as the Joe Volpe clause.

I am not going to get into any clauses about those who have passed on. I believe that this would perhaps also be called the Joe Volpe clause, but it is not dealt with in this particular piece of legislation.

There is also a part of the legislation that requires five days' notice. The notice has to be placed on the website five days in advance. Publicizing these events is a positive step. It is not a bad thing. However, another loophole comes into place. There is no provision for a long-standing event to be sold to party members and encouraged, and then at the last minute, lo and behold, the Prime Minister is attending, under the five-day limit, or the Minister of Finance or another senior Liberal minister is attending the event within the five-day period.

There is no provision in the bill to remedy that. This is a matter that I brought up at the procedure and House affairs committee, and it was not dealt with in this legislation. While the minister and the government hold this piece of legislation out as a great step forward in openness and transparency, it is simply window dressing to cover up the Liberals' past cash for access events, their pay-to-play events, and their way of getting $1,500 out of senior donors and high donors to their party and giving them access to senior people within the Liberal Party, including the Prime Minister.

This is unneeded. We will be voting against this piece of legislation. I am sure hon. members will join me in doing so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Perth—Wellington could share with the House why he feels that his party's leader should be entitled to such secretive fundraisers.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Our party and our leader follow the rules that are on the books and that are legislated by the House. The member opposite is talking about an event that took place several months ago, before this legislation was even dealt with by committee. It is like saying that the Magna Carta does not exist because King John was not given five days' notice of the event. We cannot retroactively legislate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions is just trying to sling mud at our leader with his comments, because he and his party know that we are going to be working hard in the next two years and that in 2019 we will be forming the next government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I would like to hear his comments on what seems to me to be a lamentable failure of Liberal promises regarding electoral reform and the Democratic Institutions file as a whole. The Liberals have almost no record to present. To date, the only accomplishment they can show Canadians since their election in 2015 is this bill, which is quite modest, not to say bad, given their promises.

What does my colleague think about the Liberal record on electoral reform and democratic institutions, when expectations were so high? After the 2015 election, expectations were very high that the Liberal government would produce results by the next election.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question. He is right, the Liberal government made a lot of promises during the 2015 election campaign, but did not keep them. The Liberals promised many things during the election campaign, but did not follow through on them once they formed government.

Electoral reform is one example. The government created a committee of the House and said that the 2015 election would be the last election under first past the post. The Liberals said one thing and did the complete opposite. These are the same Liberals we have seen in the past. They have not changed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague just referred to the first past the post electoral system.

It is not something that trips off the tongue easily even for the Québécois, but that is the current dysfunctional voting system we have.

I appreciate that the hon. member for Perth—Wellington raised, as I did, a really substantive piece of legislation. I do not know why Bill C-33 has been stalled for so long at first reading. I wonder if he could give me a sense of the reason.

The member for Perth—Wellington and I worked together on electoral reform on various committees. He is a sterling fellow. I do not want to put him on the spot on behalf of his whole party. Bill C-33 is trying to repair a lot of what many of us in the opposition at the time felt was damage to our electoral system. Does my colleague know the current intention, and how does he personally feel he will vote on Bill C-33?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the million-dollar question is, where is Bill C-33? It was introduced in November 2016, and yet here it is, stalled. There has been no debate at second reading. It has not even reached the point where we can get it to committee and discuss it. Our party is open to debating Bill C-33, but we have not been given the chance to debate it. It is sitting awaiting second reading, unmoved, unloved, completely stalled. I would have to ask the government, where is Bill C-33?

Where are so many other bills that the government has introduced and let sit stagnant on the Order Paper?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing). This bill proposes amending the Canada Elections Act to bring an unprecedented level of openness and transparency to federal political fundraisers. The legislation is just one of many steps that we are taking as a government to raise the bar on transparency, accountability, and integrity of our public institutions and the democratic process.

The year 2017 marked the 35th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was signed on a blustery day in April on the front lawn of Parliament just a few steps from where we are right now. Canadians cherish our charter and rightly so. It is a model for democracies around the world.

Section 3 of the charter guarantees every citizen the right to vote and to run in an election. This fundamental democratic right, guaranteed to all Canadians, is one of our most cherished civic rights. The simple act of voting is an exercise of democratic freedom that unites all of us as Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also enshrines the freedoms of association and expression. Section 2 of the charter has been interpreted to include the right of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to make a donation to a party and to participate in fundraising activities. Of course, these rights are both subject to the reasonable limitations that might be imposed in a free and democratic society.

Political parties represent a vital part of our democratic system. They unite people from different parts of the country with a variety of different perspectives and backgrounds and experiences. Parties mobilize ordinary citizens to champion policies and ideas and they foster the kind of vigorous public debate about ideas that is at the heart of our healthy democracy. Voting in an election for a candidate is one of the ways Canadians play an active and engaged role in this society. We see this as an opportunity to make our country a better place for our children and our grandchildren. Some Canadians even choose to work or volunteer in a political party or a candidate's campaign, and for many of us here in this room, we probably know few people who do not. We engage all of our friends and family to help us in our political activities, and many of the people whom we meet are either our volunteers or people who work against us in campaigns.

It is true that it is a broad expanse of the Canadian population that participates in political activity at the municipal and provincial levels, and also here at the federal level, but not everyone has the time or inclination to become involved in politics in that respect. Still, people may want to have their voices heard, so for many Canadians, making a financial contribution to a political campaign is a meaningful way for them to play a direct role in our democracy. It is an important forum of democratic expression. Choosing to support a political party or a candidate is something we must continue to uphold and protect. Everyone in this place knows that donations given by people who believe in us, who believe in what we stand for and what our parties stand for, help make our work possible, and we must continue to ensure that Canadians are free to contribute to political parties and candidates openly and transparently.

It bears noting that Canada is known around the world for the rigour of its political financing regime. Donations from corporations and from unions are prohibited under the existing legislation. To further level the playing field, there are strict limits on the contributions an individual can make. Canadian citizens and permanent residents can each contribute a maximum this year of $1,575 to each registered party. They can donate a total of $1,575 to the leadership contestants in a particular contest. In addition, they can donate a total of $1,575 to contestants for nomination, candidates, and/or riding associations of each registered party. Contributions are reported to Elections Canada and the name, municipality, province, and postal code of those who contribute more than $200 are posted online.

Bill C-50 would build on this existing regime so that when a fundraising event requires an attendee to contribute or pay a ticket price totalling more than $200, the name and partial address of each attendee, with certain exceptions, would be published online. The exceptions are youth under 18, volunteers, event staff, media, someone assisting a person with a disability, and support staff for a minister or party leader in attendance.

Canadians take political financing seriously. There are significant consequences for disobeying the law, and that is why currently the Canada Elections Act provides tough sanctions for those who break the rules. Although Canadians can be proud of our already strict regulations for political financing, we recognize that they have a right to know even more and perhaps in a more timely fashion when it comes to political fundraising events. Bill C-50 aims to provide Canadians with more information quicker about political financing events in order to continue to enhance trust and confidence in our democratic institutions.

If passed, Bill C-50 would allow Canadians to learn when a political fundraiser has a ticket price or requires contributions above $200, that it is happening, and who attended. The legislation would apply to all fundraising activities attended by cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, party leaders, and leadership contestants who meet these criteria.

This provision also applies to appreciation events for donors to a political party or contestant. This legislation would apply only to parties with a seat in the House of Commons. It would require parties to advertise fundraising events at least five days in advance. Canadians would know about a political fundraiser before the event takes place, which would give them the opportunity to inquire about a ticket if they so choose.

Bill C-50 would also give journalists the ability to determine when and where fundraisers are happening. At the same time, political parties would retain the flexibility to set their own rules for providing media access and accreditation. Parties would be required to report the names and partial addresses of attendees to Elections Canada within 30 days of the event. That information would then become public in a much more timely fashion than currently is the case.

The bill would also introduce new offences under the Canada Elections Act for those who do not respect the rules and require the return of any money collected at the event. These sanctions would apply to political parties and event organizers rather than the senior political leaders invited to the events.

We propose a maximum $1,000 fine on summary conviction for offences introduced under Bill C-50. Of course, this is in addition to returning the funds raised. This new level of transparency would further enhance Canadians' trust in government, and that is good for everyone.

If passed, Bill C-50 would deliver on the government's promise to bring greater transparency to Canada's political financing system and thus strengthen our democratic institutions. As I have said, this is just one of the efforts that we are putting into place. The government is also taking action to increase voter participation and enhance the integrity of elections through Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, and the government has partnered with the Communications Security Establishment to protect democracy from cyber-threats.

While we know that Canadians have confidence in our democracy, we recognize that there is always room for improvement. Shining a light on political fundraising activities as and when they happen builds upon our already strong and robust system for political financing in Canada. It should be welcomed by everyone in the House.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that what I am going to say does not sound a bit tongue in cheek or cheeky, but social work interns come in and they are able to do a practicum in my office because I was a social worker before I became a parliamentarian. Part of the conversation I have with those students is the difference between Parliament and government. Often community members sort of confuse the two, such as what a minister is, they are in government, and a member of Parliament is in Parliament.

I am having a hard time with the opposite side's response to the bill in blurring the lines between what we are talking about and that is talking about cash for access for government ministers. That is a whole different conversation from talking about political financing of party leaders and candidates having fundraisers. I feel that government ministers should not be involved in political financing. People should not be allowed to pay a certain amount of money to have access to a government minister. I want to hear the member's comments about the distinction between those roles.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there are roles that relate to conflict of interest and ethics, and those are dealt with under that act. The changes we are talking about today are ones that relate to changes to political financing. The member's question is one that certainly should come up in any review of the conflict of interest and ethics considerations.

With respect to how these changes will help Canadians by providing them more transparency, maybe I could just walk through the process. Under the current rules, if someone donates $200 to a political party, that amount, the information, and the names are already going to be collected. They will ultimately be disclosed to Elections Canada, and then published at some point in time six to nine months after the end of the fiscal year. It makes it difficult then for Canadians to know at the time whether or not people are attending these events, who those people might be, and to make their own determination as to whether anything improper has occurred or could be occurring.

The changes we are putting in now require that when these fundraisers take place, this information will be made available to the media in advance. The media will know where and when the events are taking place so they can attend, if they are accredited, and they can report at the event. Then of course the information will be compiled and provided to Elections Canada within 30 days of the event so Canadians can see who attended.

It will be up to Canadians then, in addition to any other ethics considerations that might fall under a separate regime, to make up their own minds on whether they feel it is appropriate and if they continue to have faith and trust in the system. I believe they will because they will have the information at their fingertips, and the light of transparency will render it clean.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the member is not the government minister for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think he would make a great minister representing his province.

Under the legislation, money gained through an illegal fundraiser has to be paid back. Along a similar vein, if a trip is taken to an island and the Ethics Commissioner finds it to be illegal, should that $215,000 also be paid back to the taxpayers?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the member's comment. The Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence is a fantastic hard-working individual, and he has certainly earned his place to sit in cabinet. He represents Newfoundland and Labrador very well.

With respect to the question as to costs assumed and controlled by a separate level of government that determines the Prime Minister's safety, we all want a prime minister, regardless of what party he or she is in, to be safe and protected, and to have those safety and security considerations managed by the RCMP, which they do. The Prime Minister has followed the rules set out. He has apologized, and he suffers the consequences in public life of having made a mistake.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for St. John's East, for his speech. I have served on committee with him and he is a fine chap who should be the senior minister from Newfoundland.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-50 on political financing, also known as “we got caught with our hands in the cookie jar, but let us pretend that we have changed and not worry about it”. However, that is just the working title of the bill.

The Liberals seem to enjoy making a mockery of their responsibility to this place by pretending to abide by and respect this institution, while acting to undermine our democracy and ethical standards. They claim to be transparent, but then introduce laws that lessen transparency. They claim to go above the spirit of the law, but refuse to follow the letter of the law. When caught, they make excuses, blame others, and accuse critics of mudslinging.

The Prime Minister wrote and signed the mandate letters. I have referred to them often in speeches and I feel like I am plagiarizing my old speeches by repeating what the Prime Minister stated, but it is important to set the stage for how this cynical bill came about. If the Liberals want to raise money, they could copyright that handbook and charge us every time we refer to it in the House to point out how they are breaking their own promises. It would probably surpass the Conservatives in fundraising.

In the mandate letters, the Prime Minister said, “you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.”

The mandate letters specifically and repeatedly reference the Prime Minister's much-touted “Open and Accountable Government” document, so I will refresh members in the House on exactly what it says. It states, “A public office holder should not participate in a political activity that is, or that may reasonably be seen, to be incompatible with the public office holder’s duties, or reasonably seen to impair his or her ability to discharge his or her public duties in a politically impartial fashion, or would cast doubt on the integrity or impartiality of the office.” The document is clear. In order to act ethically, one must choose to act ethically. There is no law that can prevent any instance of corruption from happening. It comes from behaviour and the tone set by the leader.

Let us see what the Liberals did to honour this pledge. We have the justice minister's exclusive Liberal fundraiser with Bay Street lawyers at over $500 a head. The Liberals tried to excuse this by saying that the minister was not appearing as a justice minister, but rather, just a simple MP from Vancouver. Why a bunch of Bay Street lawyers would want to shell out $500 a head to meet with just a simple MP from Vancouver is beyond me. We all know why the minister was there, and the Liberals know. They just do not care. Their excuse reminds me of the quote by the previous Prime Minister Trudeau about MPs being nobodies 50 yards off the Hill. I am surprised so many Bay Street lawyers would pay $500 for a nobody.

Do not forget about the former immigration minister doing his duty as minister of the crown by attending a Liberal fundraiser at a private residence in Ontario at $400 a ticket. Never fear, the former minister was roundly punished for this completely unethical sale of access to the highest confines of cabinet with a lowly ambassadorship to China. Thank Heaven the Liberal recourse mechanisms for breaking trust, ethics, and crossing boundaries are so severe.

Of course, we have the finance minister, who spent the entire fall dodging and ducking questions about his own lack of ethics. We should have seen this coming. Less than a year after being appointed to be the finance minister, he paid homage to the Liberal Party by selling access to himself for a whopping $1,500 a ticket to an elite group of Halifax business people. Someone across the way can correct me if I am wrong, but I think one of those attendees was later rewarded with a plum patronage appointment. However, it might have been a different one. There have been so many that we cannot keep track.

The law-abiding, rule-following, precedent-setting Prime Minister, to whom all ministers look for ethical guidance, attended a fundraiser with wealthy Chinese billionaires. One was a Chinese businessman linked to the Communist Party in China, who donated over $1 million to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. He just happened to be lobbying the Liberal government at the time for a banking licence, and guess what, he got the licence. Here we have it: donate to the Liberals or the Prime Minister's dad's foundation, lobby, and one gets a bank. That is a great deal.

My favourite of all of the cash for access fundraisers is the famous hash for access. The Prime Minister's point person on legalizing recreational pot was the prize guest at a Liberal fundraising party attended by a marijuana lobbying group at a Toronto law office that advises clients in the cannabis business.

Remember the Prime Minister's orders: avoid the appearance of preferential access. However, the person leading the pot charge for the Liberal government was the head draw at a fundraiser at the law firm advising on the pot business, and it was attended by the Cannabis Friendly Business Association, CFBA, which represents dispensary owners and cannabis farmers who want the government to allow storefront pot shops. To avoid the appearance of preferential access, we have pot sellers donating to the Liberal Party and getting face time with the parliamentary secretary in charge of rolling out the pot laws.

In an article in The Globe and Mail, here is the Liberal's response:

The individuals associated with the organization you reference appear to have only registered with the lobbying commissioner on or after the date of the event itself, and therefore the party would not have been aware in advance of their activities.

Therefore, the Liberals did not do anything bad. However, in the same article, here is what a pot lobbyist said:

CFBA organizers Abi Roach and Jon Liedtke, a co-owner of the Higher Limits Cannabis Lounge in Windsor, Ont., lobbied and were photographed with [the parliamentary secretary], a former Toronto police chief, at the $150-per-person fundraiser.

“I got 10 minutes of his time...It was worth it....”

Ms. Roach told The Globe and Mail that she:

“gets e-mails all the time” from the Liberals asking her to come to fundraisers, and no one vetted her for the April 28 event.

“They took our money happily without question,” Ms. Roach said. “If it was easier for people to speak to politicians, to explain their points of views without having to pay—I mean, there was no way to sit at this event, I was on my feet for four hours—I would rather to speak to a politician one-on-one in an office than have to pay.”

Here is a lobbyist saying that if only there was a way she could talk to the Liberal ministers without having to donate to the Liberal Party she would do it. Heavens.

The Liberals further allowed registered lobbyists into fundraisers in Montreal and Vancouver. They blamed this on a clerical error. Perhaps the same person making this clerical error forgot to note the finance minister's massive villa in France as a clerical error.

Who else is to blame for this? The Prime Minister in his year-end interview with CTV News said that all laws were followed and that it was the media and opposition causing concerns. Therefore, they break all ethical standards, accept money from registered lobbyists, but it is the media and the opposition's fault.

This brings me back to Bill C-50. On the heels of the cash for access fundraising scandal, the Liberals promised to make political fundraising more transparent. They came up with a bill that tried to legitimize unethical behaviour. When she introduced the bill, the minister stated, “Our government told Canadians we would set a higher bar on the transparency, accountability, and integrity”.

I read the speech a few times. When I first glanced at it, I thought it was satire, but no, the minister was serious. The only reason Bill C-50 includes provisions on political financing is that the Liberals were plainly unable to keep their hands clean. In fact, they did over 100 cash for access fundraisers in 2016.

The National Post says, quoting The Globe and Mail, that:

A set of emails...show just how blatantly the party sells the opportunities offered by events featuring [the Prime Minister]. A gathering held at the home of a veteran [Liberal] fundraiser was promoted as a chance to “form relationships and open dialogues with our government.”

When one puts a price on attendance, one is, by definition, selling. When one sets the incentive as being the opportunity to hobnob with the Liberal powerful elite, one is, by definition, selling access. The Liberals promised to act above and beyond the spirit of the law, as is their responsibility as leaders of the country. However, last fall's session demonstrated that the Liberals are not even capable of following the letter of the law.

This is a cynical bill merely set up because the government got caught, and more, on ethical behaviour. What is the easiest solution to avoid the implication that one is selling access? Just do not sell access to ministers. The Liberals could just not hold fundraisers with tickets sold to the highest bidders so that they can interact with the Prime Minister or a minister. It is much like not breaking the ethics laws to go to a billionaire's island. We do not need a law to prevent the Prime Minister from breaking the law. Just do not break the law. There is no rule change required to do this. All the Liberals need to do is change their behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member across the way, I could not help but think that there is a very important aspect to this legislation, which is one of the reasons why it is necessary. On this side of the House, we recognize that there is also value in more transparency, even from opposition leaders. I know that there is a great deal of resistance to that, so we are broadening out that transparency and taking a more proactive approach to ensuring that individuals are aware of who is participating in these events. As a whole, I think Canadians would support this legislation as a positive thing.

What I do not understand is this. Are the Conservatives opposing this legislation because they are going to be holding their own leader accountable for the fundraising events that he could be conducting in the future? We all know that leaders of political parties are major attractions when it comes to local fundraising in our communities, and it does not matter where they go. A leader of the official opposition, for example, has an incredible amount of authority, influence, and so forth.

Why would the Conservative Party not want to have the same sort of transparency for a leader of an official opposition as a minister of democratic reform or a minister of status of women or anything of that nature?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious. A leader of the opposition cannot sell access to Chinese billionaires and give them bank licences. People on this side of the House cannot allow certain companies preferential access for marijuana licences like a minister or a prime minister. It is simple. One cannot sell access to power like the Liberals have been doing. This bill does not prevent people from paying for access to the Liberal Prime Minister or ministers, all it does is try to legitimize a very unethical standard. If the Prime Minister does not want to be challenged on these ethics, he should not break the law, he should not sell access to Chinese billionaires, and he should not sell access to pot providers. It is simple.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Edmonton West for his perfect recitation of the Liberal malfeasance. I was proud to be part of the previous government, which fixed Liberal campaign financing laws. We made sure that only personal cheques could be issued. We put an upper limit on it, as well as not allowing corporate or union donations. It was a very robust system of checks and balances.

I am proud of the recent fundraising efforts of the Conservative Party of Canada. We blew away the opposition due to the efforts of our party and our volunteers. Again, our message is certainly getting through and people are responding.

My friend from Edmonton West gave a terrific recitation of all the things, the cash for access, the Prime Minister's visit to a billionaire's island, and so on and so forth. I would like to ask him a simple question. What is it about the Liberals that causes them to behave this way?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a quote out there that one does not have to worry; Liberals will eventually go back to being Liberals. We saw it instantly when immediately after being elected they were selling access. Liberals are Liberals. It is like the old Aesop's fable about the scorpion riding on the frog. Halfway across the river the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, “We're both going to drown”, and the scorpion says, “I'm sorry, it's in my nature.” It is in the Liberals' nature.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend also mentioned the increase in donations to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and how they spiked once the member for Papineau was named the leader of the Liberal Party in 2013. Then they went even higher as that member became Prime Minister. Maybe my friend can expand on that a little.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is part of this ongoing issue of ethics that we see with the Liberal government. We see massive donations from people to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and they are getting extra favours. One gentleman got granted a bank licence. We also see that the Liberal government gives money to the Liberal-friendly Canada 2020 group, which in turn promotes Liberal policies.

The current government is known for giving preferential access to Liberal donors. We see it again and again. It does not matter whether it is Canada 2020 or the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. The government needs to pull up its fancy socks on the ethics issue.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to political financing.

Last spring, the Liberal government tabled a bill that would require political parties with seats in the House of Commons to publicize in advance fundraising events with a ticket price above $200 involving party leaders, ministers, or leadership contestants, and submit a report to Elections Canada afterward with details of who organized and attended the event, as well as the total amount of contributions made to attend that event.

The bill would impose a modest, perhaps too strong a word, trivial penalty of up to $1,000 on every person who fails to publish information about a fundraiser in a prominent location online five days in advance of the event, to file a report within 30 days following the event, or to provide certain information in that report. The bill would not apply to parliamentary secretaries and ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff and senior staffers, and staff at the Prime Minister's Office.

The Minister of Democratic Institutions tabled Bill C-50 last spring, following months of public outrage over the Liberal Party's cash for access fundraisers featuring key ministers. My friend, the member for Edmonton West, touched on a few of those circumstances in his speech.

The Liberal government has billed the proposed legislation as something that would increase openness and transparency in political fundraising. The pretence of the bill's authors, that Bill C-50 would do anything to change the policy of cash for access fundraisers by the government, is, quite frankly, ludicrous. That it in some way limits influence on ministers or the prime minister is kind of tenuous at best.

That is the issue. Bill C-50 appears, on the surface, like an important piece of legislation, meant to provide clarity and assure the public that nothing nefarious is going on here in Ottawa; that foreign billionaires are not greasing the wheel to get access to our housing market, or buying up our tech companies, and potentially putting our national security at risk. However, in fact, the government and its Prime Minister are simply attempting to gain credit for solving a problem they created. Bill C-50 is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize the act of pay-to-play through legislation.

It was not long ago that the Prime Minister stood on a stage during the last campaign, and told Canadians that the Liberals were going to do things differently. They were going to be more open and transparent. After the election, the Prime Minister gave mandate letters to his ministers, where he said, unequivocally, that there should be no undue influence, no perception, real or otherwise, of any political interference, and that he expected his ministers to be held to a high standard when it comes to political interference and influence.

It was not long after that that the media started publicizing cash for access fundraisers involving high profile ministers and the Prime Minister himself. Lawyers were paying to see the Minister of Justice, and foreign billionaires were hobnobbing with the Prime Minister. These are just two of the examples. Many followed in the weeks after the stories broke in the media. It was quite the spectacle, and a sad state of affairs for the government. People who attended these fundraisers were more than happy to tell the media about who they talked to and on what they had lobbied.

Worse, the National Post reported that gifts to the Trudeau foundation had increased significantly since the member for Papineau's April 2013 election as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The National Post alleged that the $2 million surplus maintained at that foundation is through large foreign donations and sponsorships with businesses that are actively lobbying the federal government. It should also be noted that since April 2013, donations went from $172,000 to $731,000 in 2016. Here is where it gets interesting. Foreign donations went from zero in 2007 to over a $500,000 in 2016. One cannot blame Canadians for their cynicism of Ottawa.

My colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who sits on the procedure and House affairs committee, from where Bill C-50 recently returned, said that the problem was that these events were happening, not that they were not being reported. He went on to say that now we have a report, and that is nice, but that is not the issue.

The member is correct. Bill C-50 does not stop cash for access, it simply legitimizes it.

The committee heard from a number of witnesses who felt Bill C-50 was a nice idea, but it lacked teeth. Ms. Dawson, the then Ethics Commissioner, indicated that the bill should be amended to include parliamentary secretaries, which the bill does not.

Canada's former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, was surprised to see a penalty as low as $1,000. He encouraged the fines to be increased to $5,000, which the bill does not. Mr. Kingsley also made recommendations to capture key political staff in ministers' offices and the PMO, which the bill does not. The Liberals voted all of the amendments down, and ignored the recommendations of key witnesses. The truth is amendments to Bill C-50 missed the point.

If the Prime Minister were serious, he would simply ban the practice, not introduce a piece of legislation that amounts to nothing more than an accounting event, like a receipt that so many of us ignore after paying our groceries every week.

The Prime Minister was unequivocal when he said that no one should be given preferential access to government, or the appearance of preferential access, because they made financial contributions to political parties. Yet, this very day the Prime Minister is in Edmonton, where this evening he will attend a Liberal Party donor reception at the Fairmont.

Recently, the Lobbying Commissioner released a report indicating lobbying has risen significantly with the Liberal government. The blatant hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds.

Bill C-50 would not change the issue of fundraising in private residences and media access is still in question. Little would change with this piece of legislation, because cash for access would still exist.

This is not about Canadians donating a few hundred dollars to their political party of choice. What this is about is ensuring that Canadians are treated fairly, that one organization is not out-bidding another behind closed doors, that foreign entities are not influencing our government and democratic institutions, and putting our national security at risk, and that the very foundation of our nation, our fundamental freedoms, are not placed in peril.

Under Bill C-50, these cash for access fundraisers with ministers and the Prime Minister can still go on, albeit with a report, and even where nothing discreditable or immoral is taking place, the perception that something might or is will still haunt our political institutions. This simply must stop.

Canadians deserve a prime minister who does not say one thing and then do another. They deserve a government that does not have one set of rules for Canadians, and another for itself and its friends.

A new law will not make the Prime Minister's cash for access fundraisers ethical. If the Prime Minister wanted to end cash for access, all he had to do was just stop doing these fundraisers. He did not have to create this legislation using House time. It does not take legislation.

Bending the rules, so the Prime Minister can keep charging $1,500 for wealthy individuals to meet him and discuss government business is simply wrong. The rules are very clear. Why does the Prime Minister not just follow the rules like everyone else? On this side of the House, we will continue to follow the law as we always have.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before continuing with questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, the Environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives position themselves to be on the wrong side, and will ultimately be voting against this legislation by the sounds of it, I would like to quote the former Conflict of Interest Commissioner, someone who has been quoted extensively by the Conservatives over the past week or so. This is what Mary Dawson said about the legislation:

I support the direction of this proposed legislation. As I've said on previous occasions, transparency is important for any kind of regime that touches on conflict of interest.

This is good legislation. I am getting the impression that the real reason why the Conservatives do not like this legislation is because they do not believe that their own leader has any sense of obligation to be transparent on the fundraising that he does.

Is the reason why the Conservatives are opposed to this legislation because they do not believe the leader of the Conservative Party should have to share with Canadians with whom he is meeting?

Does the member believe that the leader of the official opposition has absolutely no authority, no ability to influence, that there is no need or reason for the leader of the official opposition to tell people who is lobbying him?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the reason we are in this particular situation at this point in time is because the Liberals continued to break the law. In order to fix the problem they created, they put in new legislation. Had they just used common sense and followed the rules, we would not be using House time to do this. We know there are many issues we could be debating right now if we were not just trying to solve Liberal problems.

These cash for access events, as I mentioned, make Canadians look badly upon Ottawa and politicians. They know that if they only pay enough money to the political party, the political leaders at the time, they will have access to government. Therefore, it is the well lawyered and lobbied as to who gets issues moved forward.

Meanwhile, we have to remember that the dollars given by any government to any other institution are ones taken from somebody or an organization, usually hard-working Canadians. If we do not respect that and see the elites getting that money, we have a problem. That is why Canadians need answers on this, and why they do not trust the members opposite.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the foresight my colleague has in the things he brought forward. One of the things that has been mentioned is the direction from the Ethics Commissioner. It is problematic to me when somebody has to give somebody else direction when we should be able to direct ourselves. Our member was suggesting that if we are ethical and responsible people, we can direct ourselves. It is sad that we need to have an Ethics Commissioner giving us direction, because we cannot, or someone cannot, follow their own common sense and do the ethical thing.

Would the member like to expand on ethical behaviour and direction that we believe people should be able to do individually?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Bow River is absolutely right. We are using House time to debate a problem that the Liberals created. They put this piece of legislation forward that really does not fix the problem. Had they just stopped what they are doing or used more common sense, we would not be in this problem.

Let us look at the Prime Minister's recent illegal vacation to billionaire island. Had he just used common sense, and realized what he was doing was wrong, we would not be in this position. We would not be asking the Prime Minister to pay back $200,000 of taxpayer money for that illegal vacation.

I should also point out to my friend from Bow River that the then Ethics Commissioner also indicated that the bill should be amended to include parliamentary secretaries. It is important to note that provision is not in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I have heard nothing on this since the beginning of the debate, I would like to know the Conservatives' position on the issue of cash for access to ministers and to the Prime Minister, which often involves very large sums of money.

If the Conservatives really consider that as unacceptable as they say in their speeches, why were there no legislative changes during their 10 years in government? Can we expect them to clearly state that they are opposed to providing privileged access to ministers in return for money?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually disagree with my friend from Sherbrooke. There were a number of provisions brought forward. We did that, and the examples are very clear. There are many of them. What we are discussing here now is the current Prime Minister, who seems to have one rule for himself and his friends, and another for Canadians. We need to bring everyone up to the same level. These actions by the Prime Minister make all of us look bad. Had he just used common sense, followed the rules, we would not be in this situation right now.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière will have 3 minutes and 45 seconds remaining when this matter comes before the House again.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 1 consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to another important piece of legislation that the government has brought forward.

I am a bit surprised with the number of amendments and the objections coming forward from the Conservative Party, in particular, with regard to the legislation. I believe Canadians in all regions of our wonderful country would support it because it is about transparency.

Members of the opposition often talk about elections and about looking at ways we can improve them. They often want to talk about ensuring there is more transparency in government. However, when it comes to an opportunity to vote in favour of legislation that would make election financing more transparent, it appears they will vote against it, particularly the Conservative Party. I am somewhat disappointed in that. I thought those members would recognize, as other stakeholders have, the value of passing it.

Nowadays, the Conservatives like to quote the former ethics commissioner excessively. Mary Dawson has been clear that the legislation would ensure more transparency. Even though stakeholders such as Mary Dawson clearly indicate that it is good legislation moving forward, the official opposition objects to it. It does not make sense, unless we get a better understanding as to why the Conservatives might be a bit nervous about it.

We on this side of the House recognize what the legislation proposes to do, and maybe that is a good starting point for me.

What would Bill C-50 do that would offend so many Conservative members across the way? The bill would make fundraising events more transparent. It would apply to all fundraising events involving cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister. I think the Conservatives object to that. The proposed bill also includes transparency by party leaders and leadership candidates when there is a leadership race.

The bill would require events to be advertised on the website of political parties at least five days before they would take place. Political parties would be required to provide a report of attendees at these events to Elections Canada within 30 days after the event.

The bill also proposes some technical changes. It will bring leadership and nomination campaign expenses in line with the current regime for candidates.

In 2017, a Conservative fundraiser was held at which the current Conservative leader was the all-star candidate, not Stephen Harper but his replacement. Many people confuse the two as the same, and I can appreciate why. No one was to know about it. It was a secret fundraiser. When we initially inquired about it, we were told there was no fundraiser.

[An hon. members]

Where's the transparency?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the initial reaction was that there was no transparency. When the Conservatives were pushed on the issue, they claimed there was a fundraiser—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind members, not all members but one in particular, that when he speaks to his colleagues, he has a wonderful voice that carries throughout the building, but the rest of us have to hear it. If he is to make the comments, maybe he could keep his voice down and he could say it to his own colleagues, but not interrupt the actual speaker.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to help my colleagues across the way in the Conservative Party realize why their speaking notes against the legislation are flawed. They go against what Canadians would want to see the official opposition do with respect to the legislation. If the Conservatives were in touch with their constituents, if they were in touch with Canadians, they would realize the error of their ways and maybe revisit them and consider being more supportive of the legislation and vote in favour of it.

I will go back to my example as to why I believe the Conservative Party opposes the legislation.

The government acknowledged and brought attention to a fundraising event that was hosted with the leader of the Official Opposition attending. Even after the Conservatives' initial denial that the event had not taken place, we persisted and they had no choice but to agree. They admitted to it, after a great deal of pulling. After they admitted they did have it, they said that he was not the same as a prime minister or a minister. It is as if the leader of the official opposition has no authority, power, or influence, that the leader of the opposition does not have to share with Canadians who he or she might receive money from in the future. We are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, and the Conservatives still believe they do not have to share that information with Canadians.

As we continue to look at ways to improve our election finances act, the Conservative Party needs to get with the times. It needs to understand and appreciate that there is an obligation to be more transparent with Canadians.

We have seen changes in legislation over the years, modernizing it, with an expectation that we will have a healthier democracy in the long run. The legislation is all about that.

The Conservatives will make accusations of all sorts in regard to the current government and the Ethics Commissioner, and exaggerate things. However, let us be very clear. Our government has consistently worked with the Ethics Commissioner and all independent parliamentary officers of the House in complying, following recommendations, and so forth. The same cannot be said about the Conservative Party, especially when it was in government.

I often make reference to the importance raising of money. It is important that we have the finances in order to campaign in elections. One strong positive is the limits that would be in place so no one could contribute more than $1,500 to a campaign. It speaks volumes to our constituents when they realize that members of Parliament cannot receive more than $1,500 from an individual. They also cannot receive anything from unions or corporations. It is a way to assure our constituents that we have rules in place to ensure we will not be influenced by big money.

Once, I had a constituent ask me if someone gave me $1,000 donation, did that influence me. First, if I do find out about it, I appreciate it. I also appreciate the individual who works 20 to 40 hours a week during a campaign period, and often before a campaign period, as a volunteer for me.

When we look at elections, they are about more than just money; they are about people and getting them engaged. We need to recognize that. We need to appreciate the thousands of volunteers who make our democracy work in the first place. However, money is an important component to it. That is one of the reasons why we brought forward this legislation, to ensure there is more transparency, not less, to improve our electoral financing laws.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure listening to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader today. The word that often is used in these circumstances is “hutzpa”. The hon. gentleman rises to talk about the glories of Liberal electoral reform a year and a day after the Prime Minister broke the most sacred promise made during on campaign trail, which was the last first past the post, etc. Today, he would like us to believe that somehow making fundraising events more transparent is a substitute for getting rid of cash for access programs. I think he believes we can fool Canadians with these cosmetic changes in Bill C-50 and make them forget that all the Liberals are doing is normalizing cash for access programs.

Does the hon. gentleman even care?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do care. That is why I have suggested, not only to the Conservatives but also to my New Democratic friends, that they support the legislation. It is good legislation.

I know some might be offended with respect to incorporating leaders of political parties. However, today's reality is that leaders of political parties, even Jagmeet Singh, have a responsibility to be transparent when they receive money. As the leader of the New Democratic Party, we goes around Canada no doubt, as other leaders do, soliciting contributions, and individuals donate to the New Democrats. Why? I will leave it up to those individuals to explain that rationale.

However, we know the leader of the New Democrats and the leader of the Conservative Party have hosted these events, just like previous leaders of the Liberal Party when it was in opposition. We are arguing, much like the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, that all of those individuals, because of the positions they hold, have an obligation today, through this legislation if it were to pass, to be more transparent with Canadians as to who attends these events and the cost when it exceeds $200.

I do not quite understand why we are seeing this type of resistance, as if something new has happened in the last two years. We see progressive legislation on a very important file. I would have thought the New Democrats would support progressive legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I was talking to a constituent about some unrelated matter. We talked about that for a while, and then she said how nice it was for her MP to get back to her on it. She said that in the last election, her and her husband had engaged their children in it. They went through the party platforms and let their children decide who they should vote for. However, she did not tell me who that was. The policy point of the party platform they decided on was electoral reform, making every vote count. She went on to say how disappointed her children were with the Liberal government, how cynical they were, how they felt disconnected from the political workings of the government, and how they might not vote when they were old enough.

Could the member across the way comment on how the breaking of this promise has made so many Canadians cynical about our whole political process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have held open town halls specifically on electoral reform. Individuals who have attended those are, as a whole, quite pleased with the government and its performance. The member makes reference to one issue within an election platform, but there are many issues in it.

We can talk about the middle-class tax breaks, with hundreds of millions of dollars going back into the pockets of Canadians. We can talk about the increase to the GIS, which is lifting literally tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. We can talk about the Canada child benefit, which lifts children out of poverty. Millions of dollars are going into my constituency every month because of the progressive approach by this Liberal government. This government is doing many things exceptionally well, and I will be informing the constituents of my colleagues across the way about that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, specifically on the issue of political financing.

Like the member opposite who just spoke, I have a great sense of pride when it comes to speaking about Canada's political financing and its corresponding election laws, which have kept big business and unions out of government decision-making. Of course, individual donors were the bedrock of Canadian politics.

I had the opportunity a number of years ago, in Panama City, during a Summit of the Americas, with ParlAmericas, to do a presentation having to do with transparency in politics. In that particular discussion, one of the things I spoke of was the lack of dollars from business and the lack of dollars from the unions and that the reality is that anyone can come into the House of Commons without having a lot of money behind them. When we go into Central America and talk about election financing there, we realize that most people are looking at how many dollars are spent on U.S. elections and the constant campaigning that takes place there.

The difference between how Canada conducts itself and how some of the other countries conduct themselves is something they felt was rather intriguing. I was a former teacher, and the amount of money we could spend would probably be about the same amount as my salary for the year. That put it in perspective so that people could understand exactly how much involvement there is and how the community could stay associated with what is done in a political campaign. For that I felt that as Canadians, we could be extremely proud.

However, here we are today specifically debating the bill before us, because Liberal elites got caught organizing unethical activities, which proved that their promise of openness and accountability to Canadians was just a sham. The Prime Minister, throughout his campaign, said that the Liberals were going to do things differently; that they would govern with openness and transparency; and that, after a juvenile statement that budgets would balance themselves, they would grow our economy from the heart out. They made a campaign promise of small, temporary, $10-billion deficits and a return to balanced budgets in a few years. We now see what that heart is made of. We are specifically debating Bill C-50 today because the Liberals could not keep their promise of openness and accountability to Canadians.

The member for Papineau was elected in 2008, at the same time I was, and sat way back on the Liberal benches. Very few people heard much of him in those days. Some perhaps thought him a bit aloof, with maybe his head in the clouds as a young guy just trying to find himself. However, the reality was that he was often out on the road, similar to what he is doing in his present position, but on a professional, paid speaking circuit. That in itself is of no concern to me, but the media report from January 16, 2014, in the Ottawa Citizen indicated that he was forced to repay money that had been inappropriately charged to his member's operational budget during his off time as an MP. This went way back to 2009 and 2010.

I know that such expenses arise for many of us on reimbursed expenses. I remember a situation of my own where a community advertisement of an event happened to include a commentary later thanking all the sponsors for the event. Well, we know what the word “sponsor” means to everyone. Therefore, when it was looked at, the answer was no, we are not paying for that. There was one person who ended up paying for that, and it was me, because I wrote the cheque. It happens, and it happens to everyone. When they realize that there is a problem, they go back and correct it.

It was also the case for the member for Papineau. He had received $217,000 in speaking fees as an opposition MP, which is a number curiously familiar to a number we use right now. A mistake was made, and he repaid the expenses that were associated with that type of activity. This is the same type of thing that many of his cabinet ministers have had to do as they have reached into their pockets to make things right.

Now the Prime Minister, after two years, has broken federal ethics laws; has a Minister of Finance embroiled in transparency and ethics scandals; and is touting economic progress, which is solely related to a buoyant U.S. economy and is poised, due to our regulatory burdens and unwise policies, to come crashing back down. This is even before the generational malaise that will affect us all because of the Liberal culture of uncontrolled deficit spending.

Again, we are here today talking about integrity and respect for the Canadian taxpayer and opening up the reality of the Liberals' promise of openness and transparency.

After the election, fresh from their sunny-ways glow, the Prime Minister publicly displayed the mandate letters to his ministers in which he clearly said that his cabinet ministers should hold themselves to a higher standard and that there should be no undue influence and no perception, real or otherwise, of any political interference. Not even halfway through their mandate, the Liberals were caught organizing cash-for-access events for Liberal insiders and deep-pocketed lobbyists. The Prime Minister and his senior ministers were effectively raising millions dollars for the Liberal coffers at private fundraisers where donors had access to government ministers.

This is not what Canadians see as ethical. The Liberals' favourite defence seems to be, “What could be wrong with that? It is what we Liberals have always done.”

We need to establish some very clear distinctions. Political fundraising is part of our political process. Everyday Canadians donate to political parties or political candidates because they believe in what those parties or candidates stand for. Donating to the party or candidates of their choice is their way of supporting the activities of those parties or those candidates, and they are doing so out of pure conviction. On the campaign trail, political party leaders and candidates are expected to hold fundraisers, and people buy tickets to come to those fundraisers. That is part of what makes our great democratic system so good here in Canada.

Here is the thing. As the government, the Liberals are going to rewrite legislation with the pretence of openness and transparency. They hope it will deflect from their bad behaviour and put the onus on other politicians that have followed the normal rules, with the hope that they will trip up, so that these types of negative stories about them will be deflected somewhere else. This is very, very sneaky. This, at its very core, is unethical influence. Then again, what else can we expect from a Prime Minister who holds the record of being the first Prime Minister in Canadian history to violate federal ethics laws? Caught red-handed, the Liberals are now trying to save face.

The question many people have with respect to this bill is whether Bill C-50 would change anything. Unfortunately, it would not. This bill would not stop the cash-for-access fundraisers. In fact, it would mandate that the Liberals publicize such events ahead of time, but reporting such events ahead of time would not make them transparent. Bill C-50, despite making the events public knowledge, would not stop cash for access. The Prime Minister and his ministers could still be at events. The staff of cabinet ministers could be at events without it even being disclosed under Bill C-50. There would be no transparency about a senior government official being at an event, only people who were candidates or party leaders or cabinet ministers.

The bill would not stop cash for access. It would not stop the influence of big money in Canadian politics. What this bill would do is formalize and institute a system in which the richest, most connected individuals would have undue influence on the reins of power in Canadian politics.

The Liberals are legitimizing their unethical schemes. This bill would not address the Prime Minister's promise of openness and accountability, and it would not deter undue influence over government decision-making.

My final thoughts are that Canadians believe that a prime minister should not need a bill to tell him what is right or wrong. The Prime Minister himself can stop this practice of letting the richest and most connected Canadians influence government. If the Prime Minister wanted to end cash for access, all he ever had to do was stop having these fundraisers. It does not take legislation to do what is right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sat quite close to the member for Papineau when he first came here. I can honestly say that to suggest that he was not involved in this place at the beginning is not exactly correct, considering the fact that he was one of the first ones to pass a motion regarding youth, one that was long overdue, and he did a very good job doing that. He worked very hard on that. That was when he first got here.

I want to go back to what the member said. It is obvious that he does not want to support Bill C-50, which is a long time coming. This proposed legislation is certainly refreshing. It is almost like we have forgotten the facts. He said himself that political fundraising is part of our political process. I was present in the House during the tenure of the former Conservative government. It almost seems like a minister never showed up to a fundraising event in those years. That is entirely not true, if that is what the member believes. The former minister of heritage, the former minister of finance, when they were in the Conservative government, went to these fundraising events.

Instead of talking about Bill C-50, because I know how the member feels about Bill C-50 now, I want him to tell me exactly why it was so wrong for those Conservative ministers to go to those events and what he did to make sure that it did not happen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just so people understand, there is a lottery system for private members' bills, and amazingly, the very first name that came up was the member for Papineau. The member is absolutely right, the member for Papineau did make a very good first impact, which had more to do with the lottery than anything else, but that is a different story.

The member made the point about the heritage minister, whom I knew very well, and I also know the facts on that point. When it was found out that members were going to be there, she refused to attend and told the constituency association that it was inappropriate. That did not stop the Liberals from attacking, going into attack mode, and bringing the media in. Those are the kinds of things we see.

We should look at the stories of how the Conservatives and the Liberals are different. The $16 orange juice always brings back that point. If anyone was at a hotel some place and was not feeling very well and wanted to order an orange juice from room service, we can be pretty sure that it would be $16. It should not be, but it would be.

These are the kinds of things Conservatives get attacked for, and part of it is because the Conservative base says, “I thought you guys were going to respect taxpayers' dollars”, and we do. We pay it back, and that is what we think Liberals should be doing as well.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was the cash-for-access events that resulted in the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner's launch of an investigation into the Liberals. Is the only reason Bill C-50 is before us today is because the Liberals were caught breaking those rules?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe that is the case. There is a shell game going on. Liberals have tried to come up with a way of deflecting the discussion. They have some members who are very good at doing such a thing. They say they are just trying to make things better, this is what everyone wants, and everything like that, but that is not the reality. They are looking at how they can deflect all the attention to other political parties.

They have made the same point with regard to the NDP, suggesting that they would expect that if a party goes through a leadership campaign or has candidates coming in, it is going to follow these really strong rules. All that is doing is setting up other people for some sort of failure for something that takes place that is going to affect them. Parties are supposed to say who has attended events. All they need is a selfie of someone who said they were there and did not register, then they can attack those political parties because they have done something wrong. These are the kinds of intrusions that occur when a government believes that the bureaucracy should run everything and it simply cannot do the right thing.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House in 2018. This year, I will be as optimistic as ever, and I will keep working tirelessly for the people of greater Drummond. Today we are talking about Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to political financing, which is at report stage.

If this bill becomes law, all political parties will be required to report to Elections Canada the names and addresses of individuals attending a fundraising event within 30 days of the event taking place. The information will be available to the public. This concerns mainly members of cabinet, including the Prime Minister, party leaders, and leadership candidates.

This amendment was introduced in response to all the scandals involving the current Liberal Prime Minister. The people of greater Drummond have talked to me about all the meetings the Prime Minister has held behind the closed doors of wealthy people's homes at which guests paid $1,500 for privileged access to him or almost $1,000 to meet ministers. This creates the appearance of conflict of interest and is known as cash for access.

The current government was thrown into turmoil by the scandal, so it decided to introduce this bill. However, the bill will not make political fundraising by cabinet ministers and party leaders significantly more transparent to the public. Unfortunately, it will not fix the problem of cash for access, so these fundraisers will continue to be held.

This bill comes just one year after the Liberal Prime Minister announced he was breaking his promise to ensure that the 2015 election would be the last one held under the first past the post system. Many voters in Drummond had believed that promise. This reform had been backed by three major political parties, including the NDP, and more than 60% of voters voted for those parties. I myself held consultations in Drummond, and the many residents who attended said they believed this change would be made. Sadly, yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the day this promise was broken, despite 90% of experts and 80% of Canadians unanimously supporting a proportional voting system.

The reform before us today does nothing to fix this problem. On the contrary, the Liberals have swept that reform under the rug, and Canadians have become even more cynical about politics, because this promise had been repeated ad nauseam by politicians. Even the Prime Minister, hand on his heart, had promised this change on multiple occasions. Unbelievably, he backed down from that promise.

What Bill C-50 wants to do is put an end to cash for access, but it does not manage to do that.

Bill C-50 seeks to put an end to cash for access, but unfortunately, it does not. Clearly, there is a lot money floating around the Liberal government right now. To give just one example, the people interested in projects funded through the Infrastructure Bank are millionaires. They want a private infrastructure bank in order to make a profit on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, including the people of Drummond. Frustrations are growing because people do not want increased user fees, the privatization of our assets, and a loss of control.

Greater Drummond has a number of infrastructure projects, and the Liberal government promised to invest in infrastructure. To date, the riding of Drummond has not received a single investment in that area. As a result, several projects have not been able to get off the ground, specifically because of a lack of federal support.

Drummondville has plans for a multi-sport centre that would include a soccer field, an indoor football field, and a running track. We really need this indoor soccer field. We asked the federal government for help. The project could cost up to $15 million. We have yet to receive a response from the government regarding funding for the project.

That is unacceptable, given that this government promised to invest in infrastructure. So far, there has been no such investment in the riding of Drummond.

We have another major project, the Promenade des Voltigeurs. This infrastructure project includes plans for a bike path that would also be an ideal walking path winding along the Saint-François River. The price tag for the project is $6.2 million. We have applied to the federal government for assistance, but have not heard back yet.

When will the federal government invest in infrastructure in Drummond? We are looking to receive investments soon.

Hockey is a big deal in Drummond. Our team, the Voltigeurs, is having a good season. Things are going well for the team this year. We would like to modernize our main arena, the Marcel-Dionne Centre. That project will cost $26 million. What is the federal government promising for that investment? Once again, nothing, unfortunately.

The Liberal government is not living up to its promise to invest in infrastructure. More than two years after it was elected, it has invested nothing.

I could go on. There is the high-frequency rail project in the riding of Drummond. The train would travel from Quebec City to Windsor, passing through Drummondville and Montreal along the way. This is a major project that would enable the greater Drummond area to grow both socially and economically. My riding is a real transportation hub. It is a wonderful area for transportation because it is so well located. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for answers from the federal government on this project, which has been in the works for a long time. The Liberals took office two years ago and they are still doing studies. It is time for them to announce investments. It is time for them to invest in public transit and this wonderful major project. The Liberals have still not made any announcements in this regard.

All of these examples show that this government was elected because it made certain promises. The Liberals made a big promise, and the people of Drummond and other Canadians believed them. They believed the Liberals when they said that the 2015 election would be the last first past the post election. The Prime Minister broke that promise.

What did the Prime Minister do? He set up a system of cash for access, which has caused numerous scandals. He held meetings at private residences and charged $1,500 a plate. That is why this government, in the wake of those scandals, introduced a bill, which, when it comes right down to it, will not even solve that basic problem.

I am calling on the Liberal government to go back to the drawing board and redo its homework because this bill does not resolve the problem of cash for access fundraisers.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's great speech, but I do not accept his arguments. I will remind members why we introduced this bill. To this day, we have no idea who donated to former prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign in 2004. That is one reason for introducing this bill. Similarly, we would like to know who donated to Jagmeet Singh's campaign. On the topic of electoral reform, the NDP and Fair Vote Canada were caught red-handed exchanging information. It might be helpful for Canadians to know whether Fair Vote Canada and its members donated to Jagmeet Singh's campaign. That is very important for transparency in our country. As my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière stated, “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”. It is important that Canadians know who donated to the opposition leader's campaign and who donated to Jagmeet Singh's campaign.

Why not be more transparent? Why does he oppose transparency here in Parliament?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's discussions are somewhat absurd. The Liberal government has been in office for more than two years. They came to power by making promises they have to keep if they do not want Canadians to become cynical. What did they do when they came to power? They gave people privileged access to the Prime Minister for $1,500. What do these people expect in return? They figure the favour will be returned. The perceived conflict of interest is greater when the Prime Minister takes meetings like that.

When my colleague raised the spectre of Stephen Harper, he forgot that his own prime minister is the one embroiled in this situation. His own government is the one currently in power. It is up to him to make good decisions and to take the necessary action to fix the problem of cash for access to the Prime Minister. It is unacceptable for people to pay for privileged access.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for reminding the House of the anniversary of the Prime Minister and the Liberals breaking a promise they made to Canadians while they were asking Canadians to help them be the next government.

I want to give my colleague an opportunity to talk about why we are so concerned when people in our communities stand up and ask people to support them. Most of us heard repeatedly that 2015 was going to be the last election under first past the post. Why would people think that the Liberal government was actually going to do real democratic reform, which is what we were all hopeful for?

We want to let Canadians know that we will not let the government simply forget about that promise or bring forward bills in response to it that really have nothing to do with it, bills that are about pseudo-democratic reform to make it look like they are doing something. Canadians do not believe that. We owe our constituents and all Canadians much more respect than that.

I ask my hon. colleague to make comments on that.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people I spoke to in Drummond told me that they voted for the political parties that promised electoral reform. Sixty-six percent of Canadians voted for a political party that promised electoral reform. This government and the Prime Minister promised, hand on heart, that the last election would be the last one under the first past the post system.

During the extensive cross-country consultation, I spoke to people in Drummond, and the committee travelled across Canada to consult Canadians. Ninety percent of experts and 80% of citizens preferred a proportional voting system for the promised electoral reform. How did the Prime Minister respond? He said that there was no consensus.

Quite frankly, that makes no sense. This is why people now feel betrayed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I want to point out that he will have time to make his discourse and then the questions will follow question period.

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

Thank you for making me aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour to rise today and to join the debate on Bill C-50. The Liberals call this the “making political fundraising events more open and transparent” act, but from my read it should really be called the “protecting Liberals from their fundraising practices” bill, because that is what this bill proposes to do.

How did we get here? We know that the Liberal Party, in particular the Prime Minister, was caught and exposed on numerous occasions in what media called “cash for access fundraising”. This is a practice where typically someone of significant wealth hosts a private event where people of similar wealth pay large sums of money to have special access to the Prime Minister or to a minister.

Obviously this is a concern, but let me explain exactly why.

As one example, we know that extremely wealthy Chinese nationals played a role in some of the cash for access fundraising activities with the Prime Minister. Likewise, we also know that the Liberal cabinet has signed off on some very questionable acquisitions of Canadian companies by Chinese interests. That is troubling for many Canadians, much more so when one considers that the lobbying activities under the Liberal government have literally exploded.

I suspect this is the most lobbied government in Canadian history, and why is that? Why are so many lobbyists often found at these private cash for access fundraisers? Even in this proposed Liberal legislation, registered lobbyists are indeed still welcome to attend cash for access fundraisers, because at the end of the day, this legislation in no way seeks to curtail or otherwise discourage cash for access fundraising events. It basically seeks to legitimize them and I would argue, by extension, encourage more of them.

To summarize the bill, basically it says that selling access in exchange for political donations of money is totally okay, so long as the event is advertised less than one week in advance, I might add. If they tell us who is on the guest list, including the address and how much the access fee is, basically, they are good to go.

Can anyone attend? Pretty much, yes. Does what actually happens at the event have to be disclosed? Heck, no. Can lobbyists attend? Absolutely. Can they actively lobby while there? Absolutely, yes, but they are required to report that. Does the legislation require someone to be there to monitor it? Heck, no. What exactly does “lobby the government” mean under this proposed bill? We do not know. It does not specifically say.

Seriously, does anyone see a problem here? I can imagine the discussions that must have went on behind the scenes when the Liberals created the bill: “We need a bill that totally makes cash for access fundraising legal to avoid these nasty media stories, but the bill cannot in any way stop the fundraising from occurring.” In this regard, the bill is perfect, legitimizing that which should not be legitimized, at least in my view.

The really interesting thing is that the Liberals think we need the bill at all.

Let me explain.

We all know the reason we are debating the bill is due to the fact the Prime Minister was caught multiple times in cash for access fundraisers, and being a Prime Minister who is all about his brand, that uncomfortable fact did not sit well with him. The Liberals could have simply stopped doing these kinds of cash for access fundraisers or at the very least there was nothing stopping the Liberal Party of Canada from adopting these policies they are now imposing in the bill. Of course, because it is all about the brand, instead we are essentially legislating into law what should not be occurring in the first place. This should be the Liberal Party of Canada's policy because hopefully the next leader of the Liberal Party will put an end to this unethical practice.

However, making cash for access fundraisers legal with certain guidelines is more brand friendly, and who does not support the brand? I wonder if the Liberals will next legislate regulations on how they can accept a free luxury vacation to a private island.

I would also like to point out that, from my own political experience at least, I have never observed any of these federal political parties aside from the Liberals using these kinds of tactics. When I brought the previous prime minister to my riding, we held a barbeque where the entry fee was well under $100 and that was only to cover the cost of the venue, food, and the logistics such as staging. I know that when the former leader of the NDP was in my riding, the event that he hosted was free to attend.

This is why I refer to this bill as the Liberals' “protect us from ourselves” bill, because it is only the Liberals, from my experience, who use these kinds of engagements for cash for access fundraising.

I wonder if this bill is open to an amendment. As an example, we learned recently that incumbent Liberal MPs are now protected from the threat of democracy provided they have a healthy war chest back at home in their electoral district association. Given that, in the past, the current Prime Minister said he would not intervene in candidate nomination processes, only to break his word and intervene, we know that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted.

Therefore, possibly we could amend the bill to suggest democracy should prevail and that no candidate should be excluded from the opportunity to run for public office because an incumbent could use cash for access fundraisers to buy immunity with the Liberal Party. Because we all know that this Prime Minister plays favourites within his own caucus, some Liberal MPs would get the help and others would not. That is something to think about.

Before I close, I will simply add this thought. Recently it was pointed out that the current Liberal government has the slowest legislative activity record in almost two decades. I am not here to praise the official opposition for that fact or to criticize the Liberals for the lack of it, but when there is less legislation on the table, so to speak, it does speak volumes as to what bills the Liberals see as a priority to advance through the House. The fact that a bill that seeks to legitimize cash for access fundraisers is a Liberal priority speaks volumes about the priorities of the Prime Minister.

We all know this bill would do nothing for the middle class and those seeking to join it, because of course they cannot afford to attend the Prime Minister's cash for access fundraisers. This bill would do nothing for people with disabilities. It would do nothing for citizens looking for affordable housing. It would not help single mothers who have been unfairly cut off from the Canada child benefit support payments, nor would the bill help federal public servants not getting paid by the Phoenix payroll system.

This bill would only help the Prime Minister with his brand when he does cash for access fundraising. That is exactly why I will be voting against the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola will have five minutes of questions coming to him once we resume debate.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, picking up where we left off before question period, as I listened to the member's high moral judging, I was reminded of another great work of fiction.

What we have here is really a tale of two leaders, in which what is the best of times for the leader on this side of the House is perhaps the worst of times for the leader on the opposite side. We have one leader, the Leader of the Opposition, attacking the other, the Prime Minister, for holding fundraisers. At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition first denies having secret fundraisers and then, when presented with proof, in a plot twist worthy of Dickens, says that it is okay for him to do those things. Then we have the other leader, the Prime Minister, proposing a bill to increase transparency in fundraising, and who is indeed already voluntarily following the rules proposed in Bill C-50.

Could the member tell the House why, in the winter of the Conservative despair, the antagonist in this tale, his leader, will not take his party's fundraising activities out of the season of darkness and into the season of light?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tells quite a tale.

Canadians expect their elected officials to act with integrity. When they see a picture of the Prime Minister on the front page of the Vancouver Sun alongside a Chinese nationalist who not only donated but was specifically lobbying the Prime Minister and gave a quote to the press saying that, specifically on a sale that would be to a Chinese company, so it would not have to go through a national security test and whatnot under our Investment Act, something is wrong.

That is why the Prime Minister is putting this forward. It is more to give political cover rather than to ensure we have a system of which we all can be proud.

We should not need to legislate either morality or the integrity of someone's office. This bill could have been about improving the system in other ways, and I gave that suggestion earlier.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite evaded answering that good question.

The issue is that the Conservative Party appears to want to vote against legislation that will ensure more transparency. Surely to goodness, the opposition would recognize that its own leader does have some influence, that it is important for Canadians to know who is paying what kind of money, over $200, and meeting leaders of our national party. This is in essence what the legislation would do.

I would think it would be natural for all opposition parties, for all members to support the idea that when a leader of a political party meets with some of Canada's more wealthier people and everyday Canadians, quite frankly, where they are paying more than $200 to be in the presence of that leader. What is wrong with sharing with Elections Manitoba the names of those who are meeting with our leaders? Why would the Conservatives oppose that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give a concrete example that the member should remember.

When former heritage minister Shelly Glover found out that lobbyists, who were registered to lobby her department for funds, were going to attend a fundraiser, she cancelled those tickets and immediately worked with the Ethics Commissioner.

On the flip side, we have a minister of justice from British Columbia going to a law office with people who will eventually be soliciting their names, most likely, towards becoming judges. We should start talking about whether that is appropriate.

What the government is putting forward is legislation that seeks to make what is illegitimate look legitimate. That is not a helpful system. The Chrétien government put forward legislation that banned corporate and union donations. That was a helpful improvement. The previous government built upon that by bringing down the levels of how much could be donated. That was helpful.

This is not helpful legislation. In fact, when we have things like the Phoenix pay system and we have aircraft not being replaced on a timely basis, those are issues we should be spending time talking about today.

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

What we have done is we have consulted Bosc and Gagnon. There is a paragraph here, and I will take the time to read through it:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words at issue were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary the following day. The codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn. Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder in the House should not be used. Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party

I think in this case, we do find that it was applied to one person, and there was some disruption in the chamber. There is no question there. We have seen it on both sides just while the discussion was taking place. What I want to avoid is a slippery slope. If we start with one word and continue on that way, who knows where we might end up.

I will leave it to the member for Durham to respond to that, and then we will get on with the debate.

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

Thank you very much for your clarity, Mr. Speaker, and for the time and interventions from other members of this House.

Certainly, when I raised it in question period, there was not disorder caused by it, but clearly in this debate there was disorder caused by it. In light of your reading of the rules, I will withdraw that word. It remains that I would still like a wider answer to the issue, but I will try to use better language, more parliamentary language, when I ask about the issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We will take that under consideration and get back, if necessary.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my speaking time has been cut short, I will try to stay on point.

Our democracy is important and we cherish it. However, it is a living thing, and we must not let it wither. We must support and nurture it. The Liberals had an opportunity to do so. They even promised to advance our democracy by introducing proportional representation. However, they broke their promise and by doing so they discouraged many young people who had decided to vote. They prevented us from having a House of Commons that truly represents the interests of the entire population. Furthermore, they have fuelled cynicism about politicians and our institutions. This is a step backwards for democracy.

In the meantime, they chose to organize cash for access meetings, where people pay for access to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. These are very intimate meetings, where a good meal and a glass of wine are served to people who can afford to pay $1,500 to speak one-on-one with the Prime Minister and members of cabinet.

In Laurier—Sainte-Marie, most people cannot afford to pay $1,500 to speak to the Prime Minister or his ministers about their housing problems or how they are outraged about tax evasion and cuts in services. They do not have that kind of money.

Why do the wealthy have this kind of access, while the people I represent, the citizens of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, do not? That is unacceptable. With Bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. I am sorry, but that is all the time we have for today. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie will have seven minutes and 30 seconds to finish her speech when we resume debate on this matter.

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act in relation to political financing. The Government of Canada promised to set a higher bar on the transparency, accountability, and integrity of public institutions and the democratic process. We also said that we would take steps to ensure that Canada's elections are run more fairly. We promised to encourage more Canadians, in particular, youth and indigenous Canadians, to play a more active role in our democracy.

Canada's Minister of Democratic Institutions has taken this role seriously. Since she received this mandate from the Prime Minister in January, she has been encouraging Canadians to become more involved to expand their civic literacy. This is not just about voting or volunteering for a campaign. Canadians can expand their civic literacy by simply engaging in discussions with their friends and neighbours at coffee shops, online, or through public policy issues that matter to them. Participation can mean volunteering for a charity, joining a community organization, or signing a petition.

Democracy has many wide-open doors for those who want to enter and play a part. We want to make sure all voices are heard. One issue that has come up in the media and in the House relates to federal rules governing the funding of political parties. Political parties of course are fundamental to our system of government. If Canadians have concerns about how the government regulates them, then those concerns must be addressed.

The concerns raised in Parliament relate to private fundraising events. Now, we are proud of Canada's strong reputation in running elections. Our system is recognized as one of the most progressive in the world. Elections Canada, as we know, regularly hosts delegations from countries wanting to learn from our system, but the government recognizes that some Canadians want their government to do more to increase transparency. These Canadians have asked questions about fundraising activities.

We believe that steps are necessary. That is why the government is creating a new level of transparency. We want to empower Canadians, including opposition parties and the media, to take a much closer look at fundraising in Canada. As I mentioned, our current laws are relatively strict. Canadian citizens and permanent residents can contribute a maximum of $1,550 annually to each registered party. They can donate $1,550 in total to all leadership contestants in a particular contest. In addition, they can donate a total of $1,550 to contestants for nomination, candidates, and/or riding associations of each registered party.

These upper limits are among the lowest in the democratic world. In fact, some other democratic countries have no limit, which of course raises serious concerns about money influencing decisions. Here in Canada, contributions are reported to Elections Canada and the name, municipality, province, and postal code of those who contribute more than $200 are published online.

Bill C-50 builds on that solid foundation of transparency. This legislation would apply to all fundraising activities attended by cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, party leaders, and leadership contestants when a contribution or ticket price of more than $200 is required of any attendee.

The name and partial address of each attendee, with certain exceptions, would be published online. The exceptions are youth under 18, volunteers, event staff, media and support staff for the minister or party leader in attendance. Parties would be required to report the names and partial addresses of attendees to Elections Canada within 30 days of the event. That information would then become public.

These provisions would apply to all parties with a seat in the House of Commons. Bill C-50 would require parties to advertise fundraising events at least five days in advance. Canadians would know about a political fundraiser before the event takes place, giving them an opportunity to inquire about attending, if they wish.

Bill C-50 would also give journalists the ability to determine when and where fundraisers are happening. At the same time, political parties would retain the flexibility to set their own rules for providing media access and accreditation. The bill would also introduce new offences in the Canada Elections Act for those who do not respect the rules and require the return of any money collected at the event. These sanctions would apply to political parties, parties' agents and event organizers rather than the senior political leaders invited to the events.

The government proposes a maximum $1,000 fine on summary conviction for offences introduced under Bill C-50, and if rules are broken, then contributions collected at the events would have to be returned. I should note that we have decided to limit the application of the new framework during the writ period. This is to avoid imposing an unduly heavy burden during elections when campaign organizers and their many volunteers and colleagues are working around the clock to get their message to Canadians. Reports on events that occur during the writ period would only be required following polling day.

It is important for us as we debate this legislation to collectively send a message to Canadians that there is nothing wrong with a legal campaign and its contributions. Political parties need to have access to adequate political funds so that they can get their message to Canadians and engage them in our democratic process. Candidates and their teams must be able to pay for office rent, buy lawn signs, and occasionally order some pizza and pop for their dedicated and tireless volunteers.

Making a contribution is also an important form of democratic expression in Canada. This is a big step that many thousands of Canadians take in order to show emphatically their support for a political party or candidate. The fact is that in every developed democratic country parties are funded either privately, by the public sector, or quite often a combination of both.

We should also acknowledge that there is nothing inherently wrong with someone trying to get their message through to decision-makers. Politicians are solicited in numerous ways: at crowded town halls, gatherings, at meetings in MP offices, and at local skating rinks.

I will conclude by returning to the initial focus of this address, that the government has promised Canadians a new level of openness and transparency. At the same time, the government is determined to protect the charter rights of all citizens to participate in our democracy. I believe the government has found the right balance with Bill C-50.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about parties having to report the attendees at fundraisers within 30 days of the event and notice being provided five days in advance.

I would ask if my colleague agrees that the bill would simply validate and normalize cash for access events, and that by simply providing notice of who was there, we would have made no difference to the reality of fundraising of this kind, which in many people's minds undermines our democracy.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a very robust system here in Canada. Our limits are modest, and we do not allow contributions from unions or corporations, but we also recognize that we have a protected right under section 2, I believe, of the charter.

Our government is striving to make sure that we are very open and transparent. Therefore, we are changing the rules of reporting from six to nine months to 30 days. We have actually front-end loaded this by allowing individuals to know who would be attending a fundraiser in advance.

I commend our government for taking these steps and initiatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the legislation that I am quite proud of is that whether one is the prime minister of Canada, a minister, an opposition leader, such as the leader the New Democratic Party or Conservative Party, there is an obligation to indicate who it is they are meeting with when someone is paying $200 to attend a fundraiser.

The former ethics commissioner, Mary Dawson, is on the record indicating that this proposed legislation would be a step forward. I wonder if my colleague would provide his thoughts with regard to how this proposed legislation would ensure more transparency and accountability when it comes to electoral reform.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member stated, the revisions have been reviewed and received quite positively. In fact, Bill C-50 was studied at the procedure and House affairs committee, and most witnesses responded positively. The acting CEO indicated that the bill would be an effective and measured tool to increase transparency. Both the ethics and lobbying commissioners said that the bill would help them do their investigations.

I, too, am quite proud that we have added these revisions and also tightened up the reporting times so that transparency actually occurs in an expedited manner.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member not see a difference between fundraisers that attract the decision-makers of a government, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, the Prime Minister, and opposition members who are not in a position to give contracts for this or that or provide jobs to people? Is there not a pretty significant difference between that? Are the talking points that the government is using for the bill not a little misleading?

Could the member also tell us why none of the recommendations of the ethics committee on the bill were accepted?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about talking points; this is about striving to be more accountable to Canadians.

I am sure my colleague would agree that the NDP made mistakes, such as the $2.7 million that had to be returned for certain offices and the $1 million that had to be given back to Canada Post. The previous government made mistakes. The fact is that our government is being open about it and we are striving to do better and be accountable to Canadians.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about democracy in Canada today and, more specific, about political fundraising, which is an important part and an important reality of the political system in which we operate.

Bill C-50, which I am proud to lend my support to, is designed to enhance the transparency of political financing in Canada. It would do a number of things, but I will focus my remarks on just a few, such as the scope of application of the bill to not just cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, but to opposition leaders and contenders for the opposition leadership; the necessity to report attendees of fundraisers to Elections Canada; and the need to advertise publicly the fundraising activities involving one of the individuals affected.

However, before I get into that by point analysis, I would like to spend a little time talking about why transparency is an important value in our democracy and in our political financing in particular.

It is a trend around the world where people, rightly or wrongly, believe their governments can be bought. I do not believe that is true in Canada. We have a phenomenally strong electoral system that has a number of institutional safeguards to prevent this kind of phenomenon from taking place.

The fact is that everyone deserves to benefit from the decisions of their government, and not just the wealthiest members of society who are able to buy influence. I would not suggest for a moment that there is a single member of Parliament in the House whose integrity is for sale. However, it is important to build public confidence by demonstrating that our institutions prevent that possibility from ever arising.

We know that a system where only the richest can dictate policy decisions is not the kind of society in which we want to live. Governments have a duty, in my mind, to serve the public interest and not the personal interest of either politicians or their donors.

The perception of politicians peddling influence is also a very important point that we need to make. When members of the public believe, even without grounds to reasonably believe it, when the perception is that politicians will sell themselves and their values to have a donation made to their riding associations so they can stay elected in perpetuity, it undermines faith in the system and is a heck of an inspiration to cause citizens to become disengaged with the work of their government and disengaged with the electoral process more generally.

We cannot ban donations altogether. Realistically, campaigns cost money. Every member of the House knows this. I value, greatly, the small donations that citizens gave to my campaign to put up election signs on my neighbours' yards, and some of the larger donations that maybe went to a communications plan to let the public know about some of the work I planned on doing locally and perhaps our party was campaigning on across the nation.

The fact is that there is real value in this form of civic engagement, and I believe citizens should be able to contribute to political parties or candidates of their choice to help get that message out during a campaign. However, we need safeguards. Gone unchecked, members of society with a capacity to pay have the potential to influence the activity of their elected officials. I do not believe that is fair or just, and it is not the kind of Canada in which I want to live.

Thankfully some of the safeguards we have in place are some of the strongest the world has to offer. We have spending limits for campaigns, a certain value cannot be exceeded, depending on the length of the campaign, which keeps it reasonable. The party or the campaign with the most amount of money does not necessarily have the loudest megaphone.

We have individual donor limits. I believe it is $1,575 annually. Again, I could not in good faith stand here and say a member of any political party, no matter his or her persuasion, would sell his or her integrity for that figure, or any figure for that matter. I trust my colleagues on all sides of the aisle.

We also, importantly, do not allow corporate or union donations. This is important because we know that the donations coming into campaigns, to candidates and to parties are made by Canadians, and we have a duty to govern for them. We are not pursuing merely corporate interests or unions that can afford to pay. This is about serving people.

Some improvements are needed. Of course, some people are not familiar with the political process, the electoral process and maybe have never donated to a campaign in their lives. I can imagine the thought process they may have when they hear about a campaign fundraiser that maybe costs $500. That is a lot of money for most of the people who live in my riding. The median income in the riding I represent is about $21,000.

The idea that some of these people will contribute $1,500, or even a more modest amount of $200 is not something they can reasonably afford. They do not want to believe that their neighbours who may have that kind of money lying around are able to walk into a fundraiser with a politician, or perhaps a future politician, and dictate what that person will campaign on in the future.

At the end of the day, what forms the idea in the basis of a campaign cannot be what has been demanded by a donor. There can be no quid pro quo. We cannot have the sense that because people donated to a campaign, they are owed some kind of an obligation. That is not right. We need to ensure that the politics of our country are dictated by what serves the public best, not what the richest donors can afford.

That is why I believe Bill C-50 would add certain important elements to enhance the transparency of our political financing system. If I look specifically at the need to report attendees to these fundraising events to Elections Canada when the cost of the fundraiser is over $200, which is the same threshold as today, I know this will let the public know who came to one of the fundraisers of the Prime Minister, or a minister, or leader of the opposition, or a candidate for opposition leadership. If I see 100 donors making maximum donations to a person's campaign and the next day he or she comes out with a new policy designed just to meet the needs of that donor base, I will know something is up. When I go to the ballot box, that will inform my decision-making.

Assuming that Bill C-50 passes, I also note the requirement to report, at least five days in advance, that there will be a fundraising initiative. This gives the public the opportunity to enquire about the nature of the fundraiser and potentially attend if people are so inclined. It prevents the opportunity for the person or party hosting the fundraising event from sequestering the attendees and burying the message to ensure the public never finds out who was there.

Transparency is of extraordinary importance. I would like to pre-emptively answer a question I heard asked of the last speaker about the need to ensure Bill C-50 would apply to both government and opposition sides of the House. I would only suggest that it would be appropriate to limit the scope of the legislation to the government if I did not believe individual members of Parliament had the ability to make a difference. I reject that notion as strongly as I possibly can.

As someone who is not part of the cabinet, not sitting as Prime Minister, not an opposition leader, or not campaigning to be the leader of a party, I know I still have the opportunity to make a difference. My integrity is worth more than a $1,500 donation to my riding association. It is not fair for the wealthiest members of my community back home in Nova Scotia to have additional influence on me than my neighbour who might earn $21,000 a year, like the median person in my riding. I, and I trust every member in the House, am in it for the right reasons. We are here to serve the public, not just the wealthiest members of it.

I am pleased to support Bill C-50. I know it will make one of the strongest political financing systems in Canada even stronger, it will strengthen our democracy, it will enhance public perception of our electoral system more generally, and it will give faith that politicians are here for the right reason, which is to serve the public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the legislation, we essentially see the Liberals trying to provide cover for the fact that they are taking cash for access. It really boils down to that. It does not change that and it does not stop them from doing it. It just simply allows the Prime Minister and his cabinet to continue to do it. They just have to ensure they put it up on a website somewhere, a few things like that, but it does not prevent it from happening.

I started to think a little about that, as well as the Prime Minister and his pattern of not being accountable. That of course extends to the recent ruling by the commissioner, in which he was found guilty on four occasions, but there really has been no consequence of that. He is refusing to repay that money. I paralleled that back to 2012. At that time, as a member of Parliament, the Prime Minister took inappropriate travel expenses. When he was found to have done that, he decided that maybe he needed to make it right and repay that.

Does the member think it would be more proper for the Prime Minister to repay the money this time as well? It was good in the past, why can it not be good now?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that question was a bit of a mixed bag and I would question the relevance of two-thirds of it. It started on whether this was an opportunity to legitimize cash for access events and it had a very partisan slant against the Liberal Party. I note that this bill is actually non-partisan in its very nature. By definition, it applies to the government and the opposition parties, no matter who is in government.

On the issue of the Prime Minister's accountability, I cannot help but note that he is currently on a town hall tour, visiting residents, and giving them access to him for free, with no opportunity to stack the room with partisan supporters of one kind or another.

The hon. member would seemingly suggest there should be a higher standard for the Liberal Party than for opposition parties. This should apply to every party in the House with an opportunity for somebody to influence the decisions today or in the near future. It is a perfectly fine approach. I note that the person the member referenced, the former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, actually suggested this legislation is a good thing because it strengthens our democratic institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. My question relates to the substance of the issue, the motivation for the bill, specifically the fundraising events that suggest the possibility of access to ministers and the Prime Minister in exchange for a substantial amount of money.

I am wondering whether my colleague is okay with that practice, since all Bill C-50 does is formalize the practice and make it more transparent. The bill gives the public more information, but it does not change anything about the fundamental issue, since it allows for the practice to continue.

Basically, I want to know my colleague's thoughts on a political party engaging in cash for access. Does he agree with this practice? My question refers more to the substance, rather than the form, of the bill before us today.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I address the question squarely, we have to ask ourselves if we want to recognize the political reality that campaigns cost money. I suggest that we do. The answer in my mind, then, is not to prevent certain people from raising money and meeting the people who donate to their campaigns, but to ensure there is transparency so that the public understands what is going on.

As I mentioned over the course of my remarks, we should not underestimate the intelligence of the public. If the public sees that there are 100 people making maximum campaign donations that are part of a particular lobby organization and the next day the recipient of the funds from those donors comes out with a new policy that caters to the interests of those people, Canadians will know that was a ploy to get elected and not to serve their interests.

I suggest the right approach is to put all of the information out there and mandate that those serving in government or those campaigning to be the leader of the Government of Canada are subject to rules that ensure Canadians know who their donors are and who was in the room when the donations of $200 or more were made, so that they can decide for themselves at the ballot box.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-50.

I am in a unique position given the fact that I am a member of Parliament from Ontario. Having seen what went on with the provincial Liberals, I can speak to the issue of cash for access and how it relates federally given the examples that happened in Ontario.

As I was going about the last election, meeting with residents of my riding, engaging in town halls and all-candidates debates, I remember warning those who would consider voting Liberal of the fact that the same players from Ontario would be involved not only with the Liberal election campaign but also within the Prime Minister's Office, and that certainly has shown itself to be true. The cash for access scheme originated in Ontario. Ontario was ground zero for cash for access.

What does cash for access mean? It means that ministers, the premier, and parliamentary secretaries would sell access to themselves to those stakeholders who were willing to pay up to the maximum amount. Ontario had no maximum amount at that time. I recall some people at small intimate settings were paying in excess of $5,000. Imagine what a fundraiser that would be. Ministers in Ontario had the opportunity to sit in private settings and sell access to their time for $5,000, and in some cases, it was more than that. It was a heck of a fundraiser for the Ontario Liberal Party, which on some nights could get upwards of $50,000 to $100,000.

Let us fast-forward to after the election. Those same players who came from Queen's Park, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, who formalized and legitimized the plan in Ontario, came to the Prime Minister's Office and the first thing they did was to concoct the same plan federally, a plan that saw the Prime Minister and ministers of the crown engage in private cash for access fundraisers. The difference was that there was a limit here federally and the limit was $1,500, a bit more above that.

In Ontario, they called this “the system”. Ministers would sell access to themselves in most cases to stakeholders and those stakeholders would be able to bend a minister's ear for whatever project, whatever dealings, whatever issue he or she had with the government. The minister would be paid and that money would go directly into a Liberal bank account. The same plan happened here.

This amounts to political extortion. It is about extorting money from those who have business dealings with the government so that those individuals can gain access to ministers and in some cases the Prime Minister.

The issue was really one of hypocrisy on the part of the government and that is why we are in this position right now with Bill C-50. The Liberals are trying to correct a problem that they created. I will remind the House what the Prime Minister told his ministers in their mandate letters about perception, real or otherwise, and about undue influence. Cash for access provides undue influence.

The member for Central Nova said he could not see how $1,500 could influence a minister of the crown. It is not just the $1,500 but rather the multiples of $1,500. We saw examples of that during the height of this cash for access scheme. The height of public awareness of this scheme was when the Prime Minister was at a private event with some stakeholders from the Chinese community. A gentleman by the name of Shenglin Xian, along with the other people there, donated the maximum amount. Mr. Xian had business in front of the government. His business was that he wanted to open a bank. Mr. Xian received approval for the bank and it was opened shortly after this meeting.

It is important to understand that ministers of the crown are very powerful. They control multi-billion dollar budgets. With one fell swoop of a pen, a minister, the Prime Minister, and the government can approve whatever business those people have. Also, the money is going into Liberal bank accounts. It is not going into the coffers of the government. These are people who are paying for access to put money into the Liberal bank accounts.

We have seen examples of this happen with other ministers. The Minister of Justice held a meeting at a Bay Street law firm. There were lots of lawyers there. I do not think they were talking about the Blue Jays, or the Maple Leafs and how they were doing. They were talking government business. In some cases, some of those lawyers who would pay the $1,500 perhaps had applications for the bench. This is why this is wrong.

What the Liberals are proposing now is to take it out of the shadows, where it was and put it in public, but that legitimizes and formalizes it. Why are they doing that? It is so they can hide behind it, so if there are any further complaints, if anyone else has a problem with cash for access, they can say they changed the rules and that the rules are clear.

In Ontario, there was so much public backlash that they actually banned cash for access. They made it so that no more could ministers or members of the provincial legislature even go to these cash for access fundraisers. Therefore, if the government is truly showing some virtue on this, it should just ban them altogether and go back to the donation process that exists today.

Of course, the Liberals want to use every advantage they can to try to extort as much money as they can from these stakeholders, because they know from a fundraising standpoint that they lag far behind the Conservatives and our grassroots donors who support our party year in and year out because they agree with the policies, principles, and values of conservatism. The Liberals want to extort people. They want to say, perhaps to the marijuana industry, perhaps to more lawyers, “Give us money, and you can have access to us and bend our ears”. How is that going to apply to middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join them? It will not, because most of the people in my riding cannot afford to go to one of these Liberal fundraisers.

The other interesting part about this, and this is the thing that really concerns me, is that it does not include parliamentary secretaries. The bill says the reporting mechanism will happen for the Prime Minister and for cabinet ministers, but it will not happen for parliamentary secretaries. Why not? That is a fair question. In fact, when I talked to the member for Banff—Airdrie, this was one of the amendments that was put forward. In fact, it was a recommendation of the Ethics Commissioner.

I have heard the argument that the Ethics Commissioner agrees with most parts of this, but this is the one area she does not agree with. Why not include parliamentary secretaries in Bill C-50? One could speculate that perhaps the reason is that, if the Prime Minister cannot do it and cabinet ministers cannot have a cash for access event in private with stakeholders and people who have business in front of the government, they want to send their parliamentary secretaries, because they, through the line, will have the ear of a cabinet minister who will eventually have the ear of the Prime Minister with respect to those people who are involved.

There are significant challenges with Bill C-50. The fact is that the government wants to legitimize and formalize the cash for access scheme so it can use it as a shield later on. If something comes up, the Liberals could then say they changed the rules, everyone knows the rules, and they are applying the rules. If they were going to apply the rules in this case, they certainly should have done it when the Prime Minister wrote his mandate letters to say that the perception, real or otherwise, of undue influence should not happen within his government. They changed that.

There is no reason to believe they are going to follow the rules in Bill C-50. This is hypocrisy as its best. They are formalizing and legalizing what will continue to be political extortion on the part of the government of stakeholders and those having business with the government.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how disappointed I am that the opposition members are not supporting this legislation, which I think is a tremendous move towards having greater openness and transparency and which is something they are asking for. I am wondering what is at the root of them not supporting it. Is it that they do not want the opposition to have to disclose the information that is being asked for in Bill C-50?

This is about openness and transparency. It is about ensuring that the website shows what events are going to be held. It is about ensuring that the attendees who have paid over $200 for events are noted and there is a list so that people know.

I do not understand. Therefore, my direct question to the member is this. Is he not supporting this legislation because the opposition members do not want to provide lists of who attend their fundraisers for over $200 or more?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we do follow the rules. The Liberals did not follow their own rules. If the hon. member wants to talk about openness and transparency, there is an open and transparent process, which is the donations from grassroots Canadians who support political parties. Openness and transparency does not mean I extort people for $1,500 to come to a fundraising event that I am at so they can bend my ear, if I am the government, to make a decision that perhaps favours or benefits them.

It is not just the $1,500; it is the multiples of those $1,500 and what that represents with respect to influencing government policy that is troublesome on this. What they are doing is formalizing and legitimizing cash for access. If they have a problem with it, why do they not cancel it altogether, like the Ontario Liberals did?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister has a record of saying one thing and doing another. I am wondering if my hon. friend could comment on how the hundreds of cash for access events hosted by the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers square with the “Open and Accountable Government” document, the standards of conduct by which the Prime Minister and ministers are supposedly bound. It provides, among other things, that “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access..”.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it became very clear from the onset that the words the Prime Minister wrote on his mandate letters were not worth the paper they were written on. I say that as an example, because the first thing the members on that side of the House started doing was the same thing that happened in Ontario. They started engaging in cash for access events, and many of them were in the shadows.

If it were not for the media, or in some cases for the people who attended those events, none of this would have become transparent. In spite of all the platitudes and all the words about openness and transparency, the current government and Prime Minister are anything but that. Therefore, I say again that the words the Prime Minister wrote to his cabinet ministers in those mandate letters are in fact not worth the paper they were written on. It is concerning that the Liberals are still legitimizing and formalizing cash for access.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the times leading up to the election in 2015, we witnessed hermetically sealed government events that people went to. Lord knows who they were, what they talked about, and what they left behind in terms of donations to the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to ask my colleague across the way if he believes that the people who attended an event that Mr. Harper held were there to talk about what was happening in Calgary heritage, or if perhaps it was that member's position in government that attracted their attention.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the Liberals' modus operandi to blame or accuse somebody else without accepting responsibility for their own actions. We see here another example of this accusatory tone from the member opposite.

However, when we have the example of a Chinese millionaire, I assume, attending a private event with the Prime Minister because he has business in front of the government of opening a bank and there are a multitude of donors there, and then all of a sudden that bank gets opened, I think it is a problem. It will continue to be a problem under this proposed legislation. It would not stop the problem; it would just formalize and legitimize the issue.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to on Bill C-50an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing).

Bill C-50, more particularly, would require certain public notification and reporting in respect of certain political fundraising events. In that regard, Bill C-50 would require that where a cabinet minister or party leader or leadership candidate attends a political fundraising event, and where the ticket price for the event is more than $200, that public notification would be required and a report would be sent to Elections Canada on the event.

The government has sold this bill as a bill to increase transparency, accountability, and to strengthen Canada's political financing laws. I say that one should not buy into the bill of goods that the government is trying to sell to Canadians. This bill is not about increased transparency. It is not about increased accountability. It is not about strengthening Canada's political financing laws. Rather, what Bill C-50 is about is legitimizing and sanitizing the government and the Liberal Party's sordid cash for access racket. That is what Bill C-50 is about.

Why would the government, by way of legislation, seek to legitimize cash for access? As my colleague, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie has pointed out, the government has found its hand caught in the cookie jar one too many times. The government has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, and as much as the Prime Minister has said one thing, he has then done another. We have a Prime Minister who, after all, more or less disavowed cash for access fundraising and then proceeded to engage in cash for access fundraising. He not only engaged in cash for access fundraising but perfected cash for access fundraising.

To understand the degree to which the Prime Minister broke his word to the Canadian public, one need only look back to the 2015 election, when he told Canadians to elect him and that he would deliver the most open, most transparent, and most accountable government in Canadian history. To try to demonstrate that he meant what he said and said what he meant, the Prime Minister, upon appointing his cabinet, unveiled a document called “Open and Accountable Government”.

“Open and Accountable Government” was the code of conduct, the standards of conduct, by which the Prime Minister said that he, his ministers, and parliamentary secretaries would be held to. “Open and Accountable Government” did deal with sets of standards, standards of conduct, for cabinet ministers, for the Prime Minister, and for parliamentary secretaries, specifically relating to political fundraising.

It is important to speak to and review some of what “Open and Accountable Government” said to understand how blatantly and how flagrantly this Prime Minister has broken his word to the Canadian people. “Open and Accountable Government” says, among other things, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.” However, it gets better. It says, “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access..”.

Moreover, “Open and Accountable Government” states that department stakeholders, including lobbyists, should not be targeted for the solicitation of political funds. That is what “Open and Accountable Government” says. That is the standard the Prime Minister set for himself and his cabinet, so it begs the question: what did the Prime Minister do following the issuance of that standard? The answer is that the Prime Minister ignored “Open and Accountable Government”.

It was as if “Open and Accountable Government” had never been written. As my friend, the member for Barrie—Innisfil, said, it was not worth the paper it was written on, because almost immediately, the Prime Minister doubled down with cash for access event after cash for access event. Indeed, in 2016, the Liberal Party held more than 100 cash for access events, like one held in May 2016, in Toronto, with none other than Mr. Sanctimony himself, the Prime Minister, who was at the residence of a Chinese billionaire. There were other Chinese billionaires there, each of whom paid $1,500 to the Liberal Party of Canada. There they had an evening with the Prime Minister, making dumplings and having the ear of the Prime Minister, and, I am sure, spending a wonderful evening with him.

Among those in attendance was none other than the chief investor in the Wealth One Bank of Canada, a bank that was seeking a banking licence in Canada at the time of the cash for access fundraiser. What a sweet deal: $1,500 to the Liberal Party and an opportunity to spend the evening with the Prime Minister to talk about Wealth One Bank. Sure enough, the licence was approved.

At the very same event, there was a Chinese Communist official. He was not a Canadian citizen, so he could not send the money directly to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party said not to worry about it. Two weeks later, that same individual wrote a $200,000 cheque to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. I guess we are supposed to assume that it was a coincidence that he would spend the evening with the Prime Minister and two weeks later decide to write a $200,000 cheque to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

My friend from Barrie—Innisfil says that we could not make this up. Well, we really could not, because it is just incredible. It speaks to the hypocrisy, to the lack of ethical conduct, on the part of the government.

Here we are today with Bill C-50. What does it do? It requires public notification five days before an event. I say, big deal. It requires reporting to Elections Canada of an event. I do not know if it occurred to the government, but every single political contribution is already reported to Elections Canada, so in terms of substantive improvements to political financing laws in Canada, the bill falls short.

It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors so that the Prime Minister can pretend that he is doing something about political financing, all the while giving himself a blank cheque to engage in the most sordid types of political fundraising activities. This is a cynical bill, and Canadians deserve more than a cynical bill from a cynical and ethically challenged government.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely say that this is not a cynical bill. This is a bill that is making a substantial difference. It is unfortunate to hear from my colleague across the way on this topic in such a cynical manner, because to be perfectly honest, fundraising is an activity that all political parties undertake.

I want to make one correction. We know that no foreigner can make a contribution. It is against the law. That is something all political parties uphold.

Second is that parties would actually report who attended an event, when it took place, and where it took place. This is important, because this is information Canadians have not had before.

Bill C-50 aims to make fundraising events more open and transparent. All I hear from the opposition members is that they do not believe in more openness or transparency. We know for a fact that the Leader of the Opposition was holding fundraising events in secret this summer and refused to provide details.

Does my hon. colleague not believe that more openness and transparency about fundraising is a good thing? That is exactly what the bill aims to do.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have absolutely no lessons to learn from the government, because the consistent record of the government is to say one thing and do another. It is the Liberals who issued “Open and Accountable Government”, and it is they who almost immediately flagrantly violated their own ethical standards.

I remember standing in the House, day in and day out, in April of 2016, asking the Minister of Justice about the pay-to-play fundraiser at Torys LLP in Toronto, an event that was attended by lawyers and lobbyists, an event that was advertised as an opportunity for attendees to engage with the minister on matters that pertained directly to her role as Minister of Justice. That is called pay to play. That is called giving preferential access. That is called giving the perception of a conflict of interest. It is right in “Open and Accountable Government”, and instead of taking responsibility for it, the minister would not stand in her place to defend herself, leaving it to the then government House leader.

The minister was given forewarning about the fact that she was breaching the standard the Prime Minister had set, and she went anyway. She thumbed her nose, and that is what the Prime Minister has done. He has thumbed his nose, because he believes that he is above the rules, that they do not apply to him. They apply to everyone else, but he and his ministers—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was accused of cynicism. I think one can do better. I have called this the bait and switch act; it looks like the Liberals are going after cash for access, but no, they are going to go for transparency, and now we can all know that there is cash for access. I have also called it the lobbyists despair act. Why would we now have to hire a fancy lobbying firm in Ottawa, when one can go right to the minister and the Prime Minister and ask about that job for one's brother-in-law or that contract for one's firm?

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he would agree with me that the government's claim that somehow it is exactly the same for government members, who actually give contracts, and opposition members, who do not, is, in fact, a joke.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. It is an absolute joke for the government to try to conflate the power vested in ministers with that of a leader of an opposition party. It is simply a very different context and a very different set of circumstances.

I see that the member for Beaches—East York is in the House, which reminds me, in terms of how the government operates, that he had a fundraiser with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the point man on marijuana. Lobbyists for the marijuana industry showed up. One of them was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying that she really would have preferred to sit down with him, but if she had to pay a few hundred dollars to be there, that is what she would have to do.

That is how the Liberal Party operates. It is a real shame.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I will remind hon. members that they should stay away from referring to either the absence or presence of members in the chamber.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I note that the parliamentary secretary and I agreed on ground rules for the fundraiser I held. We agreed that we would not talk about cannabis, despite a mutual interest in discussing it. Also, just so the record is clear, the cost of that event was $150, or $20 for monthly supporters, which might make it the cheapest cash for access in the history of Canadian politics. I also note that the individual who was quoted in the Globe bought a ticket under a different name, and we refunded the money as soon as we found out who she was.

Bill C-50 would improve our political financing rules, which are already some of the strongest in the world. Our stable democracy, including our open and fair elections, in many ways depends on these rules, enforced as they are by a truly independent watchdog in Elections Canada. Of course, while the rules that underpin our elections are fair, our electoral system more generally remains less fair than it could or should be. Under first past the post, there will always be a significant gap between election outcomes and voter intentions.

I did not think it fair for the Harper administration to hold 100% of the power in government, including complete control in this House, with less than 40% of ballot box support. I do not think it is any fairer for us, as Liberals, to do the same. As our lives have moved online, we have seen communities of people from different geographies coalesce around different issues and common experiences, yet our electoral system largely ignores this reality and these communities.

I recognize that this government does not intend to revisit this issue, but I want to lend my voice in support of current efforts in British Columbia. I hope that BC shows us a way forward, bringing the same leadership to our country on electoral reform they have brought on carbon pricing.

In contrast to the sweeping change of electoral reform, Bill C-50 is a series of tweaks, thankfully in the right direction. We already have political financing rules to be proud of here in Canada. No one can buy an election here. We ban corporate and union donations. We cap annual personal donations at $1,550, with a set escalator of $25 a year, and we have strict spending limits. In a traditional writ period, the expenditure limit for local candidates is around $100,000.

I played baseball in Oxford for a year while completing my master in laws. I was a pitcher, and our catcher was from Mississippi. He had volunteered on the Obama campaign on the west coast, perhaps because it was lonely in Mississippi. We talked about our mutual interest in politics and about the idea of elected office. When I explained the hard cap on riding spending, he could not stop laughing. He joked that the same amount of our spending limit is one bad radio spot for them.

As a member of the board of young MPs for the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I helped organize a conference of young MPs here in Ottawa this past November. We were joined by 120 MPs from over 50 countries. In between sessions, we compared notes on political financing rules. If our rules were emulated around the world, the ideal of democracy would be significantly strengthened in practice.

A fair and participatory democracy depends on the rough equality of the strength of our voices in the political process. As Ronald Dworkin has put it, in calling for a more ambitious conception of democracy, it is “one that understands democracy as a partnership in collective self-government in which all citizens are given the opportunity to be active and equal partners”. As our Supreme Court has put it, “The advancement of equality and fairness in elections ultimately encourages public confidence in the electoral system.”

We need only look south of the border to see what can take place absent such rules. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to see positive and lasting change in our American ally until Citizens United is revisited. Again, in the words of Dworkin:

The most effective way to prevent money from dominating politics, and to prevent powerful corporations, unions, and other groups from receiving favors for contributions, is to lessen politicians' need for money, and the most effective way to do that is to limit what politicians may spend.

Given the importance of our strict political financing rules, it is necessary to revisit them on occasion, with a view to strengthening them further. Such is the case with Bill C-50. Bill C-50 rightly addresses public concerns about large donors receiving preferential access.

The bill would improve transparency. For political fundraising events at over $200 a ticket, Bill C-50 would require the attendee list of the event to be disclosed publicly. It would ensure that fundraising events would no longer be held informally or privately, where a minister or leader is concerned, as Bill C-50 would require that all such events be posted publicly in advance of the event's scheduled date. This is as it should be. It would not be a major change, but Bill C-50 would make a set of strong rules even stronger.

Having listened to the debate here in the House, and having read the testimony at committee, I am struck by how lucky we are to live in Canada. In Iran, thousands of protesters have recently taken to the streets. Women have been arrested for defying a law that requires them to wear headscarves. I stand with all defenders of democracy around the world, including in Iran, who exercise the basic human right of free speech in the name of democracy.

The right of political participation is, as Jeremy Waldron notes, the “right of rights”. We should defend such participation at every opportunity and equally defend demands for such participation where it is currently absent.

I just received an email this morning from a constituent, who has been involved with the elections in Kenya. He writes, “a senior political leader in the Kenyan opposition...was arrested last Friday after administering the presidential oath of office to the opposition leader...Later in the day, a court ordered that [he] be released on bail. To date, the Kenyan government has failed to do so. This morning, it defied a court order that he be brought to court. As a consequence, the Inspector General of Police has been found in contempt and ordered to produce him tomorrow.” This is outrageous, and the Kenyan government should act expeditiously to respect the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Again, we must stand firmly in support of these ideals and in support of activists around the world who demand a voice in the political process, the right to vote, and other core rights and freedoms.

Here we are debating, among other things, the difference between a $100 or $200 ticket price threshold for public disclosure of attendee lists. It is not a trivial debate by any means, but it is a luxury of living in Canada.

Of course, we should not turn down an opportunity to improve our rules simply because the rules, and the enforcement of the rules, are worse elsewhere. Therefore, I will add my own suggestion for improving political financing for our government to consider. We should cancel all political tax credits and direct all such funds through restoring the per-vote subsidy.

The Department of Finance estimates that the total tax expenditure for political tax credits is $30 million per year. As we remind our supporters every December and in every over-the-top email blitz, political tax credits are incredibly generous, exceedingly and unnecessarily more generous than the credits available for charitable donations. Meanwhile, the federal cost of restoring the per-vote subsidy to its pre-phase out level, adjusted for inflation, is estimated at $39.2 million as of 2017, according to a Library of Parliament analysis conducted at the request of my office.

The simplest solution would be to restore the per-vote subsidy in an amount equal to that saved by the cancellation of the political tax credit. Our balance sheet remains the same, but political financing becomes fairer. While it is not electoral reform, it would, in its own way, make every vote count.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments from the member for Beaches—East York concerning the per-vote subsidy and the tax credits available for political donations versus charitable donations interesting. I found it particularly interesting since there was a private member's bill before this place from the member for Provencher which would have brought charitable donations up to the level of political donations. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party voted against it.

I would ask the member whether his party supports the return of the per-vote subsidy.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Parliamentary Budget Office conducted an analysis, which was pretty clear that the cost of that private member's bill would have been quite large. The answer is not necessarily to increase charitable donations to where our political tax credits are, but to reduce the exceedingly generous nature of political tax credits. However, I did support that bill at second reading so it would be studied further at committee.

Second, I certainly support the per-vote subsidy. However, I do not speak for the government, as the member may know. Sometimes I do, but on this occasion, it is something the government should seriously consider. However, I cannot say that the government plans to do so at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague for his thoughts on what I believe is a very progressive part of the legislation. For the first time, not only ministers and the Prime Minister would have to provide details of those who attend fundraisers, but opposition leaders of other political entities, the leader of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, would also be obligated to be transparent with respect to those who attend their fundraisers. These individuals have an incredible amount of influence politically, and Canadians have a right to know who meets with them, those who ultimately want to become Prime Minister some day.

Could he provide some of his thoughts on the issue?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that leaders should be subject to these rules. It is not only the power that leaders have, and there is no question they have power. Obviously there is a difference between a leader and a minister or a prime minister where taxpayer funds are allocated. However, these leaders may come into power in the future in all likelihood. We will not be in government forever. It would be the leader of the Conservative Party or perhaps the leader of the New Democratic Party down the road. Therefore, it is very important that leaders be subject to these rules, regardless of their party. However, it is also about the culture. It is important for leaders to abide by these rules, because if they do sit on this side of the House one day, they would have instilled in themselves and in their office a culture of transparency.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address Bill C-50 by articulating what I believe is its central purpose, which is not to remedy an absence in the law that has resulted in unlawful behaviour. Rather, it is to deal with an issue that was never unlawful; it was something that did not pass the sniff test and was not considered acceptable by Canadians.

Therefore, the goal of the bill is to put in some new and completely insignificant reporting requirements about who attends cash for access or pay-to-play fundraisers. It puts some minimal limitations on where they can be held, and has a few other little bells and whistles of that sort. It does so for the purpose of saying that the government has done something to address what the Canadian public regards as an ethical problem even though, strictly speaking, it is not a legal problem.

The goal here is to normalize or legitimatize a practice that Canadians have said is not normal and not legitimate, which is holding fundraising dinners at which individuals pay up to $1,500 a pop to meet someone as eminent as the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, people who have a direct impact on issues of immediate importance to their enterprises. Sometimes we will see multiple people from the same company buying tickets, effectively grouping together, as a way of maximizing the potential interests that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance would have in talking to them. In doing so, the government is saying that this practice, once it reports on it, will become legitimate, or at least it hopes Canadians will regard it as legitimate.

I want to make the suggestion that Canadians' rejection of this practice as illegitimate is well-founded. It is quite deep. I certainly hope the legislation will not overcome the concerns Canadians have.

Let me read a bit from an article by The Hill Times a few months ago. It talks about a particular event held at a prominent law firm in Toronto where the justice minister was present. The attendance fee was over $1,000 a ticket. The Hill Times wrote, “So [the] Justice Minister...wasn’t breaking any rule by being the guest of honour at the pricey fundraiser organized by a Bay Street law firm. It just smells really bad and violates the spirit of the government’s own code of conduct.”

Canadians think it is illegal, they are surprised to learn it is not illegal, and now, with this process of requiring some reporting, the government can say that it is explicitly legal. We heard it in the minister's response about those sneaky opposition leaders out there who were having their own fundraisers, with the same sort of things occurring. The minister who raised this earlier apparently believes or wants us to believe that leaders of the opposition or of third parties are capable of delivering favours and that people would buy tickets based upon that. Of course that is nonsense. It is a diversion from the fundamental ethical problem, which is that ministers can deliver favours. I am not saying that the ministers have delivered favours. How would I know? However, clearly, some of the people who have been buying tickets believe it is a possibility, and the Canadian public emphatically believes it is a possibility.

Maybe the Canadian public is all wrong and stupid. That is certainly a prominent theme in Liberal policy, or policy adjustments with the current government. I mean the Canadian public was all wrong about electoral reform, for example. Let me tell people what those stupid, poorly-thought-out Canadians think.

I will quote again. The Globe and Mail states:

A Nanos public-opinion survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail from Nov. 26 to 30 [of 2016] shows that 62 per cent of Canadians disapprove of the Liberal Party's practice of charging people $1,500 a ticket to meet in private with...[the Prime Minister] and senior cabinet ministers who oversee major spending or policy-making decisions.

Maybe 60% of Canadians are wrong again, but maybe there is the possibility that people are not wrong, that they are upset, and that this exercise of pulling the wool over their eyes is inappropriate, illegitimate in itself.

Why does this fail the sniff test? Why do Canadians think this is not the right way to do fundraising? The answer to that, I think, is illustrated by a number of examples I can offer of specific Liberal fundraisers. These were the source of the ethical conundrum.

Chinese billionaires, and when I say Chinese, I mean someone who is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, not a citizen of Canada, attended Liberal fundraisers even though they were not allowed to donate. They were not Canadian citizens. One such individual, Zhang Bin, who is also a Communist Party apparatchik, attended a May 19, 2016 event, at which a cabinet minister was present. We were told that Mr. Zhang and a business partner, just to sweeten the deal, donated $200,000 to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and donated $50,000 to build a statute of the current Prime Minister's father.

Another example was on November 7, 2016, in B.C. B.C. multimillionaire Miaofei Pan hosted a fundraiser at his West Vancouver mansion. This was going on at the same time the federal government was in the process of reviewing the $1 billion bid by China's Anbang Insurance Group to purchase one of British Columbia's largest retirement home nursing care chains, which it did.

The government's behaviour also fails to live up to the highfalutin rhetoric in the mandate letters to all ministers, which say:

To be worthy of Canadians’ trust, we must always act with integrity. This is not merely a matter of adopting the right rules, or of ensuring technical compliance with those rules. As Ministers, you and your staff must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

The mandate letters are publicly available and this can be read in every letter.

Clearly, having these fundraisers does not achieve that target. The Liberals are completely failing to achieve their targets, so they are trying misdirect, saying they have a new set of rules that make it all okay. I do not know, maybe this will work; maybe it will not work. The question is why the Liberals are trying it in the first place.

The answer is that this is the backbone of Liberal fundraising. Attendance figures suggest that the party brings in somewhere between $50,000 and $120,000 per event when the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance is in attendance. The Liberal Party needs these events to keep its fundraising up. It has not developed successively a mechanism for going after a large number of smaller donations or of getting this size of donation in the absence of this kind of event.

That is a problem for the Liberal Party, I grant that. However, may I suggest for the Liberal Party that developing a grassroots appeal will not be done by holding this kind of event and then trying to cover it up. On the contrary, a populist appeal necessarily involves trying to reach out at the grassroots level. The Liberals are doing better than they did in the past, in all fairness, but that is where they should be concentrating. They should not be concentrating on trying to epitomize pay-for-play or cash for access, something Canadians have spoken against so very strongly.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the hon. member is no longer the critic for democratic institutions. I have tremendous respect for him. I know the colleague who replaces him has big shoes to fill but I am sure will do a good job.

If these measures are so insignificant, why is the leader of the member's party refusing to disclose where, when and who attends fundraisers he has? If they are so insignificant, why are Conservatives not willing to abide by these measures in the interim?

The opposition is speaking a lot about why these are not important, yet they are not willing to participate in these measures. Openness and transparency with regard to fundraising is actually significant, otherwise the opposition would not be so remiss to participate in what we have proposed.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the minister for her kind words. I am confident that my colleague who has taken over the roll will perform as well as and possibly better than I did. Some might say that is an easy bar to clear.

I will respond to the substantive question this way. I do remember when that story came out about a fundraising dinner for the Leader of the Opposition. I heard about this before anybody else did, and the reason I did is I received a call from Marie-Danielle Smith of the National Post. She wanted to ask about a fundraising dinner, not one that my leader was at, but a fundraising dinner that I held in violation of this new, not yet in effect rule, at which Giant Tiger executives all gave donations of $1,500 each. As members may know, my family runs Giant Tiger. I am now the vice-chair of Giant Tiger and that is the reason I am no longer the critic on this file.

If members had been there, they would have seen my head explode. I was furious. I told her that there is no way she figured this out on her own, that Liberal opposition research was digging around and had noticed that a bunch of cheques came through on the same day and concluded it must be the result of a fundraising dinner. I told her she was being fed this story so she could put it out there and create a make-believe scandal. I pointed out the obvious, that surely she did not think I had to hold a dinner to encourage people from a company that my family owns to contribute.

If the Liberals want to say that having MPs' business contacts give money to them is a scandal, then they should say that. It would have a major impact on a whole group of people on the government side. Getting their research department to try to feed stories to reporters to create make-believe scandals in order to draw attention away from their own government's scandalous behaviour is abominable, but that is the way the Liberal government acts more and more and more.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard correctly. Did I just hear my hon. colleague say that it is obvious that business people in a certain business are giving to his party? That is precisely what bringing greater transparency and accountability to political fundraising is all about. I would like the member to either correct himself or explain how he is legitimizing exactly what we are here to oppose.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the idea that people do not go to people they know, people who are their friends, people they have done business with and who have a high regard for them to seek donations, would be one that would exclude anybody who has a business background from either making a donation or receiving a donation.

As for the suggestion that multiple members of the same board of directors will give money, the member need only look at any number of companies, Apotex, for example, where multiple board members have repeatedly made donations to the Liberals. One of the examples I cited earlier was multiple directors of a company making donations to the Liberal Party. Maybe that is a terrible thing, but if it is, it is a terrible thing in which the Liberals are full participants.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act in relation to political financing. This bill proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to bring unprecedented openness and transparency to federal political fundraising. The legislation is the latest step the Government of Canada is taking to improve upon transparency, accountability, and integrity in our public institutions and toward strengthening the democratic process. I would like to thank the minister and her parliamentary secretary for their work.

In 2017, Canadians celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter is a model for democracies around the world. Section 3 of the charter guarantees every citizen the right to vote and to run in elections. This fundamental democratic right guaranteed to all Canadians is central, obviously, to our democracy. When candidates for a federally elected office engage in raising funds to run a campaign and when donors contribute, it is critical to ensure that the processes are open, transparent, and accountable. The integrity of our political system depends on being vigilant and on continuous improvement in recognition of the fact that the public trust is earned and re-earned every day.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also enshrines the freedoms of association and expression. Section 2 of the charter has been interpreted to include the right of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to make a donation to a political party and to participate in fundraising activities, subject to reasonable limits. Political parties are a vital part of our democratic system. They unite and mobilize people from different regions and with a variety of different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences to volunteer, champion policies, have new ideas, and foster and engage in public debate.

Voting in an election for a candidate is one of the ways we play an active role in our society. Volunteering for a political party or campaign is another way. Certainly, making a financial contribution to a political campaign is a way to play a direct role in the democratic process. Upholding and protecting the integrity of the political campaign contribution process is our collective responsibility as members of Parliament. We must continue to ensure that Canadians are free to contribute to political parties and candidates.

Canada is known around the world for the rigour of its political financing regime, and this comes from our constant attention. Donations from corporations and unions are prohibited under existing legislation and there are strict limits on the contributions an individual can make. Canadian citizens and permanent residents can contribute a maximum of $1,575 annually to each registered party. They can donate $1,575, in total, to all leadership contestants in a particular contest, and they can donate a total of $1,575 to contestants for nomination, candidates, and/or riding associations of each registered party. Contributions are reported to Elections Canada, and the names, municipalities, provinces, and postal codes of those who contribute more than $200 are published.

Bill C-50 builds on the existing rules. When a fundraising event requires someone to contribute or pay a ticket price totalling more than $200, the name and partial address of each attendee, with certain exceptions, would be published. The exceptions are young people under 18, volunteers, event staff, media, someone assisting a person with a disability, and support staff for a minister or party leader in attendance.

Canadians take political fundraising seriously. There are significant consequences for disobeying the law, and that is why currently the Canada Elections Act provides tough sanctions for those who break the rules. Though Canadians can be proud of our already strict regulations for political financing, we recognize that they have the right to know even more when it comes to political fundraising events. Bill C-50 would provide Canadians with more information about political fundraising events in order to continue to enhance trust and confidence in our democratic institutions.

If passed, Bill C-50 would allow Canadians to learn when a political fundraiser that has a ticket price or requires a contribution of $200 or more is happening and who attended. This legislation would apply to all fundraising activities attended by cabinet ministers, including the prime minister, party leaders, and leadership contestants who meet the criteria. It would also apply to appreciation events for donors to a political party or contestant. This legislation would only apply to parties with a seat in the House of Commons. It would require parties to advertise fundraising events at least five days in advance. Canadians would know about a political fundraiser before the event takes place, giving them an opportunity to participate and even observe.

Bill C-50 gives journalists the ability to determine when and where fundraisers are happening. At the same time, political parties would retain the flexibility to set their own rules for providing media access and accreditation. Parties would be required to report the names and partial addresses of attendees to Elections Canada within 30 days of the event. That information would then become public.

The bill would also introduce new offences in the Canada Elections Act for those who do not respect the rules, and require the return of any money collected at the event. These sanctions would apply to political parties and event organizers rather than the senior political leaders invited to the event. We propose a maximum $1,000 fine on summary conviction for offences introduced under Bill C-50.

This new level of transparency recognizes that the public trust is always being built, and delivers on the government's promise to bring greater transparency to Canada's political financing system and thus strengthen our democratic institutions. We are also taking action to increase voter participation and enhance the integrity of elections through Bill C-33. The government is partnered with the Communications Security Establishment to protect Canada's democracy from cyber-threats.

While we know that Canadians have every reason to be proud of our democracy, which together we build every day, we recognize there is always room for improvement. Shining a light on political fundraising activities builds upon our already strong and robust system for political financing in Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-50, parliamentary secretaries are excluded from the legislation. I would like to ask the hon. member if she would go to a cash for access event if she was invited.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the member should raise that point because parliamentary secretaries are also members of the government. The rules strike me as being eminently fair, and the community is also very ready for that.

I am entirely transparent. Before I entered federal politics, I ran for 12 years at the local level. My fundraising rules at the local level were always published. Everyone who contributed was always known. That is the very basis of an open government in which people can have confidence.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is to be commended for her record of transparency prior to running for the Liberal Party to be a member of this chamber. I would like to ask her how she reconciles her understanding of conflict of interest and need for transparency with a party which, until caught, systemically ran a program of secret fundraisers using search engine protocols to bury these types of events. I would also like her to answer the question that my friend from Barrie—Innisfil asked previously, which was whether parliamentary secretaries should attend or will attend cash for access fundraisers.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the terminology that my hon. colleague is using. For any event that we attend, if the tickets are $200 more, every single person who attended would be known. Certainly this government is already applying the rules that we propose under Bill C-50, and we look forward to the support of each and every member of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way what her thoughts are on the question of the unethical conflict of interest that goes on at these cash for access events. First is the transparency. They are two very different things. I would argue that conflict of interest is the biggest problem, and the bill only tries to solve a smaller problem and does nothing for the elephant in the room. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill is to move in a step-by-step way, continually toward greater transparency and accountability. The way that should work in a democracy is that we all hold one another accountable. Whether someone is a volunteer, a donor, or a candidate, it does not matter; we are all citizens of Canada and we are all responsible for the integrity of the system.

I would like to note what the acting Chief Electoral Officer said in October 2017:

In this regard, I note that the Bill offers a calibrated approach. Not all parties will be subject to the new requirements, and that is a good thing. Similarly, the rules will not apply to all fundraising activities, but only those for which a minimum amount is charged to attend and where key decision-makers will be present.

It occurs to me that is something every member of Parliament can agree to.

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

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition members have paradoxically exercised themselves with great vigour to decry the elements of transparency and openness proposed in Bill C-50, while they themselves are practising a closed style and opacity. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could share any first-hand experience that she has with just how open and transparent our Prime Minister truly is.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. Today, the Prime Minister's open town halls are open invitations to all Canadians to bring all points of view to him. I have never experienced something as open as this and it is a stark contrast to what we experienced with the previous government.

That is why Bill C-50 is part of also increasing participation, also increasing access, also being available to journalists and questions. I cannot count the number of times with the previous government that I was so let down because of not being able to ask, as a public office holder myself, the former prime minister a question about things that matter so much to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker said, something I will repeat, elections are central to our democracy. Through them, the people of Canada give us here in the House of Commons the huge privilege and responsibility of representing them. If people feel elections are not fair, are biased in any way, it erodes the confidence they have in us and in all the work we do here.

This bill is about political financing. It arose in response to the cash for access fundraisers that Liberal cabinet ministers were organizing. There are a lot of things wrong about these events. First and foremost is the conflict of interest: lawyers paying to lobby the Minister of Justice or bankers paying to lobby the Minister of Finance. They are paying the Liberal Party. It would be bad enough if one had to pay a government user fee to gain access to cabinet ministers to recoup the cost of their salaries or whatever, but this money went directly to the Liberal Party. Finally, is the secrecy. Events were usually private. The public did not even know about them so could not attend them if they had wanted to or were wealthy enough. As well, we did not find out who donated until the year-end reports.

This bill would only fix the last problem. It entirely misses the point on the most serious aspect of cash for access. If we asked a reasonable person on the street about what they find troubling about the cash for access problem, they would not single out the lack of transparency. They would not say that if they only knew the names of the people involved they would feel okay, or that if only they had been invited it would be okay. No, they would say that the problem was the conflict of interest in asking people to pay big bucks to the Liberal Party if they wanted access to cabinet ministers.

We know lobbying happens every day on Parliament Hill without money changing hands. I was talking to one of my Liberal colleagues the other day, and he was saying how busy he was in his office with lobbyists. That is great. He is working hard and that is his job. However, cash for access is a different kettle of fish, and this bill should have put an end to it. Instead, it actually legitimizes cash for access, with a dollop of transparency.

Because of that added transparency, that extra step, the NDP will reluctantly support this bill, but will keep reminding the Liberals that the conflict of interest aspect of these events has to be dealt with. The Liberals say they are fighting inequality in our society, but cash for access entrenches inequality. It gives more power to the powerful. No wonder many Canadians are cynical about politics and politicians. If anything increases cynicism in politics, it is when politicians break promises.

People are smart. They know that governing is difficult and sometimes one cannot fulfill every little promise made during the election. However, when someone breaks a big juicy promise, a promise that got them elected, people feel completely betrayed.

Last weekend, a constituent emailed me about an issue, so I called her back and we talked about that issue. At the end of the conversation, she said how happy she was to hear directly from her MP. She said that she had lost confidence in politicians after the last election. She said that during the campaign, she and her husband had engaged their children in discussing party platforms and issues, and figuring out which were most important to them.

In the end, they actually let their children decide who they were going to vote for. In the end, they decided electoral reform was one of the most important issues. They did not want Canada to elect another Parliament where a party with 38% or 39% of the vote held 100% of the power. They were deeply disappointed in the Conservative government for taking us down a path that two-thirds of the country disagreed with. They were excited to see that three of the other parties made electoral reform a central plank in their party platforms. They were happy to hear those leaders, including the present Prime Minister, repeat time and time again that this would be the last election run under first past the post.

That is what I saw at the all-candidates forums during the election. The Liberal candidate stood beside me to repeat the mantra that this would be the last election run under first past the post, that the government would ask Canadians and experts what the best new system would be, and they would implement that. The audience would stand up and cheer. Those people are not so happy now. The woman I talked to was devastated. She told me her children were so disappointed with the Liberals for going back on this promise that they might not vote in the next election when they are old enough. This betrayal is going to breed cynicism across Canada.

All of us here knock on doors throughout our ridings. Some people are happy to see us. Some people do not agree with our party. However, the big disappointment for me when I began door-knocking was the number of people who told me that they do not vote. They told me to not even try to tell them to vote or why they should vote. That changed in the last campaign. Most people were engaged in issues and were going to vote. I think they were energized by the feeling of change sweeping across the country and the chance they had to make a difference.

Three of the parties had pledged to change the electoral system so that every vote would count and strategic voting would be a thing of the past. One could vote for one's favourite candidate and party and know that one would make a difference in the final result. Unfortunately, they elected the only party that would break that promise.

It started out well. The minister asked MPs to hold town halls to talk to Canadians about electoral reform to find out what they thought. NDP MPs answered that call. We held multiple town halls and asked people their opinions at the end of the meetings. We wrote down the numbers on the kind of system they wanted. We sent out questionnaires to every household in our ridings and tallied those numbers, and 80% of those responses were in favour of proportional representation.

Liberal MPs held town halls as well, but few, if any, asked people what system they favoured. NDP MPs started going to some of those meetings to find out if our results had been biased, and asked the crowd at the Liberal town halls for a show of hands on which system they would like. About 80% of those people wanted proportional representation as well.

The electoral reform committee met through the summer asking experts from across the country and around the world what the best system for Canada might be. Almost 90% of those experts said that proportional representation would be the best system.

The Prime Minister said that he broke his promise because he could not find a strong demand from Canadians for change and thought that changing would be bad for Canada. He is ignoring those experts. He did not ask Canadians. Instead, the government sent out a laughable survey that asked ridiculously biased questions around the margins of electoral reform. There was no question asking, “Do you want change?” or “Do you want seats in the House of Commons to reflect the proportion of a vote?”

Despite the silly questions, the survey did find that 70% of respondents wanted a government where several parties agreed before a decision is made. Almost two-thirds agreed that it is better for several parties to govern together, even if it might take longer for government to get things done, as the question said.

Canadians want political parties to work together in Parliament. Despite the way that last question was asked, things will actually get done faster if that happens. Just look at the snail's pace of the current government's actions, brought on by its uncooperative attitude with the opposition that has brought the system to periodic halts.

Canadians want a fair electoral system that produces results that accurately reflect the faces of this country. Canadians want more women representing them in the House. All of this could be achieved with a new electoral system that uses some form of proportional representation.

We must work constantly to maintain a healthy democracy in Canada and we must fight everything that breeds cynicism about our work here in this place. Many Canadians feel they have no voice, that their votes do not count, and that they do not have an equal opportunity to voice their concerns to the government. Real electoral change would do that.

Finding out sooner which lawyer paid $1,500 to the Liberal Party to get access to the Minister of Justice does not help much. Finding out in advance that there is a an event on Bay Street where one could meet the Minister of Finance with an admission fee of only $1,500 does not help. We need strong laws banning unethical conflicts of interest and we need true electoral reform to keep our democracy strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I liked the first part of the member's remarks, especially, where he went through a number of the problems with the bill. I will ask the member the same question I asked the member for Victoria on Friday.

Given how poor the bill is and how little it would do to really address any of its stated purposes, and the fact that it is really a bill designed to give cover to the practice of cash for access, why lend it any credibility at all, even by holding your nose and voting for it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House for that question on Friday, so I can only repeat what my colleague from Victoria said. We do not want to be seen to be against openness and transparency. That is what the government will say if we vote against the bill. We like openness and transparency. This is a tiny step forward in that way. However, we are fighting to get the real problem, the elephant in the room, this problem of unethical conflict of interest, back on the table. We could not make amendments to that at committee because it would be adding to the scope of the bill.

The bill was very restrictive when it was brought in, so we want to keep fighting for that. We like the openness and transparency part, but it is a very minor part of the problem. The big problem is conflict of interest, and we have to do something about that.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague is acknowledging, at least in some part, that this is a step toward openness and transparency. As a member of the procedure and House affairs committee that had the opportunity to discuss this and listen to witnesses, I am very proud and happy about this legislation. It is a big step we are taking with respect to openness and transparency.

Two of the things I would like to focus on and ask the member about are the websites of political parties, having to advertise or make known to everyone that the events are taking place five days ahead of time. That is a fantastic step. People have awareness ahead of time. We are open as to what fundraisers we are having and which cabinet ministers are attending, or whether the Prime Minister is attending. The member mentioned it as a little step, but I think it is significant. People, including the media, want to know.

The second thing is about reporting the attendees within 30 days after the event. Again, this is a step toward openness and transparency in ensuring that every person who attended a fundraiser is going to be listed so that the Canadian public knows.

Would my colleague not agree that these are two very significant and positive steps?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous comments, I think they are positive steps, but tiny positive steps. The Prime Minister has never come to any one of my fundraisers, so my fundraisers are very different things. It is very important to make that distinction with fundraisers where there is a federal minister who is regulating a part of our Canadian system. Who is attending those fundraisers is important. We find out who donates to the Liberal Party at the end of the year anyway; this just moves that up.

It is very different when $1,500 is charged for a fundraiser with the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister than it is with say, one of my fundraisers. If I charge $100, people complain. I am not worth it. We have to make that decision, and this legislation moves us in a very small way towards that.

To follow on what I said to the previous question, it does risk forgetting about the big question around the unethical conflict of interest. That has to be fixed, and should have been fixed with this legislation. We should have made it illegal for cabinet ministers to take money to be lobbied by any group that they deal with directly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we recognize the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and resume debate, I will let him know that we will have to interrupt him before his 10 minutes are up in order to start with statements by members. We will give him the usual signal, and that will be about one to two minutes before the hour. Of course, he will have his remaining time when the House gets back to the debate on the question.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-50. This is a bill that some of my Conservatives colleagues, and I believe the member for Barrie—Innisfil, may have called yet another Seinfeld bill, a bill about nothing.

This is a bill that does not do much other than, from the government's side, try to give some type of legitimacy to their practice of exchanging cash for access. The steps toward transparency, given the existing law, are very minor in nature and do nothing to address what the previous speaker characterized as the elephant in the room, which is the exchange of cash for access.

For the benefit of those who have not followed the debate or are not aware of some of the background, it is necessary to understand the background to grasp how almost meaningless this bill is. The current laws on election finance already limit financial contributions to those from individuals only, and they limit them to just over $1,500 per person. They expressly ban donations from corporations and from unions. They ban anonymous contributions of over $20, and they require public disclosure of any contribution over $200.

All of these transparency pieces that we hear from the government members in debate on this bill, which they congratulate themselves for, exist in the current law. We will just be changing the dates, making reporting happen a little sooner than otherwise would happen. Already, anybody who contributes $200 or more to a political party is subject to disclosure. This transparency piece that the government members speak of already exists. Everyone is already going to disclose if they give over $200 to a political party.

These rules all came into place early in the previous Parliament. The previous Parliament had a mess of ethical scandal to clean up when it came into government, and the new and current electoral fundraising laws are a part of that.

In the previous Parliament under the rules, cash for access was not an issue. It was understood by members of the previous government that their prime minister, Stephen Harper, would not tolerate it. I have spoken to my colleagues on this side who were ministers in the previous government, and they are absolutely appalled by the cash for access system that the Liberal Party and its government have, because they know it is wrong. The ministers in the previous government knew they would be cut off at the ankles if they tried to shake down their stakeholders and lobbyists for money by doing cash-for-access fundraising. It was a practice that was not done under the current law, and only began when the Liberal government took office.

This bill purports to be a solution to a problem that only exists for one party, the Liberal Party of Canada. This bill is unworthy of support because it is designed to give cover for a practice that will then be carried on. Liberals will no doubt later congratulate themselves on passing this bill and then claim that there is nothing wrong with cash for access; they changed the date with which the reporting has to happen and compelled themselves to start holding their events more publicly, and to not, for example, use search engine protocols to bury results when people look for Liberal fundraisers.

As has been remarked on in some of the previous speeches, the Liberals ran on a grand platform and promised a number of things, including electoral reform. Some members in the country ran on a pro-pipeline agenda, and others were anti-pipeline, promising different things in different parts of the country. They promised limited deficits and a balanced budget within two years, after running a maximum $10-billion deficit. Liberals promised access to information reform.

Liberals also boldly declared, with the Prime Minister himself promising to lead, that they would have the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. That is now the punchline of a bad joke in the wake of his own conduct, the findings of him having been in conflict of interest and violating four sections of the code on his vacation, as well as the whole cash for access system, which took form very quickly after Liberals came into office.

It was through the media that Canadians came to understand the scope and breadth of cash for access fundraising that was taking place. We heard about episodes that the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston spoke of earlier, when he talked about how Chinese nationals, who are not allowed under the existing law to contribute to political parties, were meeting privately, in private homes, to lobby the government and the Prime Minister directly. We have heard about the Minister of Justice having a cozy fundraising event at a Bay Street law firm with other lawyers and perhaps future judicial applicants. We have heard about the finance minister and his cash for access fundraising, and the industry minister. This is widespread.

This was a central part of the Liberals' fundraising apparatus that only came to a halt, sort of, when it came to light through media reports beginning in the late spring of 2016. Today we have this bill before us, and I am sure the Liberals will congratulate themselves for having dealt with this criticism, but it leaves the elephant in the room. Cash for access fundraising is wrong, and this bill would not make it right.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge will have three minutes to complete his remarks following question period.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Prior to question period, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge was very gracious about being interrupted for question period, and he now has three minutes remaining in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, we certainly would not want to hold up question period, so I was happy to yield at that time.

With the three minutes I have left just to pick up, I spoke of the background and the history on this bill and the issue purported by the Liberals to solve. Being that of a problem with fundraising that the Liberal party is the only one with the problem.

Mr Speaker, we know that cash for access and the calls to eliminate and calls to question and be concerned about the conflict of interest inherent in cash for access fundraising were the reason for this bill. The Liberals had to do something. They had to be seen as doing something about a practice that only the Liberal Party party takes part in, so they tabled the bill we are now debating.

As I said before question period, Bill C-50 is not necessary. The government could at any point simply choose not to shake down its own lobbyists and stakeholders for money for the party. It could simply choose to not allow that of members of its own cabinet, who have the power to dispense contracts, to hire people into the public sector, to make judicial appointments, to put out cash to subsidize businesses. A minister of the crown has these powers. Members of the opposition do not have these powers. Leaders of opposition parties do not have these powers. Government backbenchers do not have these powers. A minister of the crown has these powers.

It is the swinging back that we have heard, and I am sure we will hear more in a minute or so, that this is something about anything other than cash for access fundraising. It is just silly.

I will conclude by reiterating that I do not intend to support this legislation. To do so would be to lend credibility to a government that is merely seeking cover for a practice that Canadians find odious, that nobody besides members of the opposite party think is okay. I am not going to allow them to use the passage of this legislation to say they have somehow sanitized and legitimized the practice of cash for access.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to give a quote from a published news report last year: “Conservative leader [the leader of the Conservative Party], whose party attacked the Liberal government for months for holding cash for access fundraisers, says he won't post details of his own private fundraising events.” This was at one particular private fundraising event with real estate and business executives in the Toronto area. The Conservatives initially denied that the event even took place, but, when found out, they said their leader was not going to publish that information. Later on in the story, he said, “I'll continue to follow every single law that Elections Canada has on these types of issues..”.

This legislation would compel the leader of the official opposition, who would like to be prime minister some day, to demonstrate transparency, to show that Canadians have the right to understand who is attending the Conservative leader's fundraisers.

Is the real reason that the Conservatives are going to vote against this legislation because they do not believe their leader should have to share that information with Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the disingenuity of that member knows no bounds.

Under existing law, the names of those who contribute $200 or more are published. We already know that. The existing law requires transparency on fundraising. This legislation is completely unnecessary when it comes to revealing the identities of those who contribute over $200 to a political party.

By his own admission, the present Prime Minister is a ceremonial prime minister. He does not do the job of executive office; his office does it for him. It has the power over contracts, of appointments, the power to dispense patronage, and the power to dispense subsidies. Those are the powers of a prime minister, and that is why they need to be held to a higher standard, without cash for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman from Calgary if he shares my concern that Canadians might be tricked by the government's bill. They might think that having “transparency” is somehow the same as getting rid of the odious practice of cash for access, “pay-to-play”, as some of his colleagues have called it. They might be confused by the government calling out, as one of the members just did, the opposition leader, and acquainting his or her access to that of the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister, or others, whom I think we would agree have slightly different roles to play. I wonder if he shares my fear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do share some of those concerns, although the bigger concern I have is that by buying into their statement that this is some grand transparency bill and by voting for it, we would lend legitimacy to it. My hon. friend, in our exchange on Friday, said that he did not want to be seen as voting against apple pie. However, if someone orders apple pie and the server brings them a baloney sandwich and calls it apple pie, they send it back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague to try to read a Liberal's mind and figure out the real motivation behind this bill. I apologize in advance if he is unable to do so.

Does my colleague believe that, at the end of the day, the Liberals figured that Canadians were upset about events such as those granting privileged access to ministers and the Prime Minister and decided to do something about it? They like those events so much that the only thing they could think of was to advertise them just a little more.

Does my colleague believe that that was the Liberals' train of thought? Instead of ending the practice, they simply decided to make it a little more transparent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume they do not simply end the practice because they are addicted to the money that they raise. It is a successful practice.

Second, they do not get conflict of interest. We have seen this from the Prime Minister. He has breached the act in four places, and they act like nothing is wrong with that. They make a mockery of their statements on open and transparent government that insists all members govern themselves to a standard that is beyond reproach, and yet cling to talking points. The member may recall, for months they said no laws were broken, that they technically were not doing anything wrong.

I do not know what to say. I would not presume to try to assume the mentality or try to understand how they come to these conclusions. However, make no mistake, the bill is just cover for cash for access.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really interesting bill. It is a really interesting topic.

I am often asked by colleagues around the world what makes the Canadian system different from electoral systems such as the one in the U.S. One of the great things about Canada's electoral system is that we actually do not have the same sort of strain or pressure on us from corporate interests or wealthy donors as we see in the U.S. I certainly would not want to be in the same position as some of our legislative colleagues in the U.S., given that they spend a lot of their time fundraising. I think that is ridiculous. I like to be able to use my time to actually legislate rather than spend all my time figuring out which donor I have to acquiesce to in order to take certain positions on bills or votes, as we see in other legislative systems.

The fact that we have caps on how much people can spend in an election is very important. The individual cap level is a wonderful way to level the playing field to get people to enter politics, such as under-represented groups such as women, as one example. Also, it is important to note that we do not have the corporate influence in the same way we see in other countries.

The Minister of Democratic Institutions, who is new in her role, had the opportunity to table a bill on electoral financing reform. She could have tabled anything she wanted. She could have tabled something that could materially impact Canadian democracy, allow under-represented groups to enter, or further level the playing field, but she completely failed.

The reason I will not support this bill is that it does not address what I think is the biggest concern in political financing in Canada, and that is the major loophole that allows wealthy individuals, corporations, unions, and foreign influences to influence the outcome of our elections. The minister has done nothing to stop that.

This should concern not just my party or the Liberals. Everyone here should be concerned about this loophole the Minister of Democratic Institutions has done nothing to address, which is the loophole that allows corporate interests and foreign groups to register as third parties in Canada. They can essentially take money from anywhere, without any reporting standards, and influence the electoral outcome.

It is very difficult to do research on this, but in preparation for this speech, I did.

For political party electoral district associations, individual donations are capped at approximately $1,500 per year, corporate donations are banned, and there are strict spending limits, and even stricter reporting requirements. The system levels the playing field for traditionally under-represented groups, such as women. I also believe that it gives our electoral system integrity. It also prevents access and influence on the political system from being in the hands of the wealthy, corporate interests, and special interest groups. It is important, because it also limits the scope and ability of special interest groups to directly impact elections through spending. However, there is a significant loophole in this process.

In Canada, an individual corporation or group can register as a third party for election advertising purposes and then make expenses to “promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates”. As opposed to the law for financing political parties or candidates, corporations can spend money on elections via this route. Corporations can therefore influence candidates. Also, there are no limits on the donations a group can receive from an individual. Individuals can, therefore, in effect, exceed their political spending limits and influence the outcome of elections.

Further, a third party has to register with Elections Canada only once an election is called, which makes it difficult to track the activities of a group with regard to its influence on our electoral process. Also, it only has to report donations that come in during the six-month period prior to an election being called, which means that in many cases, the public has no way of knowing where its money came from. In addition, there is no requirement to state which candidate a third party promoted or opposed, making it difficult for the public to know if members of Parliament are compliant with ethics guidelines on conflict of interest.

This is the part that is difficult to research. I manually tabulated all of this. In the 2015 federal election, over $6 million was spent by third parties on election advertising. To put the significance of that amount into perspective, the entire election spending, per Elections Canada, for the Green Party of Canada was approximately $3.9 million. Moreover, for individuals listed as contributors to third-party election advertising spending, many also contributed to federal political parties or local electoral district associations.

I would like to present an example from the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. There was an individual in that riding named Michelle Good. If we pull up her donor profile from Elections Canada, this individual donated significantly to the federal Liberal Party. However, she also donated significantly to the New Democratic Party. We can look at that. For example, I am looking at one instance when this individual, on September 6, 2015, donated $400 to the New Democratic Party.

Here is the interesting thing. There is also a third party, registered under a Michelle Frances Good, that spent $2,363.29 to advertise in Kamloops during the election period. This is just me looking at what I can find online. However, I would surmise that it is the same Michelle Good who contributed to the Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo federal NDP riding association and then registered as a third party and spent $2,300 to purchase advertising under this third-party group. How does that happen? I thought we were only supposed to be able to pay $1,500 a person to participate in the federal electoral process.

I bet that I could find people registered as their names and find their donations, and sure enough, there they were. That $2300 is a lot of money. Someone who does not have access to that level of funding does not have the access this person has to influence the outcome of an election. When we start thinking about $2,300, $3,000, or $4,000, while that does not seem like a lot, it actually is a lot in the context of the overall spending in that particular district.

What if I had said that the Koch brothers had registered as a third party. That would get the attention of a lot of people here. The reality is that because trade unions and environmental NGOs have taken care of this loophole, the Minister of Democratic Institutions has completely ignored it.

I will say one thing. Once people realize that this loophole exists, all gloves are off. If the Liberals do not address this problem, what I worry about is that everyone here is going to say that we all have to use PACs to get elected. All of a sudden, that uniquely Canadian “I can focus on my legislation instead of fundraising” goes away.

The minister came in with a fresh, new hope-and-change mandate from the Prime Minister. If the Liberals know that this happens and did not even look at it or touch it, then mark my words: after the next election, this place is going to be looking at this and saying that I had a point.

I would hope that my colleagues would all be in agreement and put aside partisanship and say that we do not want PACs in Canada. The example I gave should not happen. Closing this loophole should be in this legislation. Reporting donations for these third parties needs to happen. Reporting the purpose of electoral advertising needs to happen. Prohibiting donations from entities other than individuals needs to happen. We need to prohibit individuals from using third-party registration status to circumvent the cap on individual donations.

Why is that not in this legislation? It is a glaring loophole that will have a huge impact on our democratic system. It already has with that $6 million. We do not even know where it came from or what it was used for. How can we tolerate that? That is the antithesis of democracy, and it is not in the bill.

The bill is a waste of time. It is not going to change the behaviour of the Liberals. What I am talking about would, and I have no idea why it is not in there.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the timing of the introduction of Bill C-50 was interesting in that it fell right as the Liberals were breaking their promise on electoral reform. It is the bait and switch of a party that was looking to get out from underneath the burden of having promised something and then blatantly betraying that promise.

One would wonder where this came from. The bill was born from the allegations, which I think were quite correct, that the Prime Minister and many of his cabinet ministers were finding themselves in an obvious, to everyone else, conflict of interest. We had the justice minister meeting with high-priced Bay Street lawyers, fundraising. We had the finance minister meeting with members of the financial industry, who have interests in his department. These were not just meetings. They were fundraising events. They were $1,500- and $1,200-a-person fundraising events.

If we all remember the Prime Minister's own much-vaunted mandate letters to his cabinet, which applied to him as well, not only could his cabinet ministers not find themselves in a conflict of interest, they could not even place themselves in the appearance of a conflict of interest. It is somewhat ironic now, because the author of those mandate letters broke our conflict of interest rules.

Bill C-50 does what the law already prescribes, which is that we have to make things public, but it does not do anything about cash for access, nor the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest. Is there any hope in the legislation that future fundraising events by the government would not create the same dynamic, the same scenario of ministers being lobbied and donated to by people who have self-serving interests?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually thought of my colleague last week, when, in a town hall meeting, the Prime Minister said, in response to a question on whether he would ever entertain questions on democratic reform or change the voting system, he said yes, as long as it was not proportional representation and a ranked ballot system. As long as it is him as a dictator defining what Canada's democracy looks like, he is good with it. It is that tone that would probably answer my colleague's question as to why the bill was introduced.

What is going to happen with this? Honestly, I think the system is going to get worse, because we have not addressed this glaring, huge loophole in our political financing system. Six million dollars entered the Canadian system, which I am sure any of my American colleagues would say they have to fundraise in five minutes, but that is a lot of money in the Canadian political context. Now that people are aware of it, it is only going to get worse. The bill should have dealt with that loophole. This is going to have a huge impact on the next election, and not for the better.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to understand exactly what the bill is proposing to do. In essence, it would provide more transparency and more accountability. No matter how the Conservatives, and at times, the NDP work together to try to critique a piece of legislation, that is the essence of what it would do. Whether it is the Prime Minister, a cabinet minister, or a leader of a political party, if people attended an event where they paid in excess of $200 to be in the presence of those individuals, there would be a responsibility to report those names to Elections Canada in a timely fashion. There would be more transparency and more accountability. Even the former ethics commissioner, Mary Dawson, said that this would be a step forward.

All of what the member wants to see in future legislation is wonderful. I wish her well in getting it. However, with respect to this specific bill, would she not agree that it is a positive step forward?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would, frankly, put lipstick on the Liberal's cash for access pig. The bill would do nothing to change the fact that if the Prime Minister wanted to charge $1,500 for access to him, he could still talk about government business with these people. There would be no significant change.

My problem with the bill is actually encapsulated best in a quote from my colleague opposite. This was after he was asked about the cash for access scandal when it first broke. He said, “When one is following the laws, there cannot be a conflict of interest.”

Frankly, it is about judgment. People in Canada cannot afford to pay $1,500 to have access to top legislators. That is not right, and the bill would still allow it. It would allow the Liberals to keep their fundraising model. It would also allow the Liberals to keep the loophole open while at the same time saying, “Hope and change. Democracy is alive in Canada. Everything is wonderful.” It is actually such a waste of time. Why are we even debating the bill? It does not do anything. All it does is allow the Liberals to keep on with their bad behaviour, and Canadians are tired of it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to get to the real intentions behind government legislation, it never hurts to consider where it is coming from: its background, its history, and the circumstances surrounding it.

As my great-grandmother would say, “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. The government was caught red-handed holding private events offering privileged access to the Prime Minister. Now, it thinks it can make these events more palatable by advertising them to major lobbies with the means to pay $1,500 to discuss their agendas, but advertising them does not make them any less private. The Prime Minister met with Chinese-Canadian billionaires, for instance, and all of a sudden he got a total of $70,000, in $1,500 increments, for his riding of Papineau, even though the reception was held 5,000 kilometres away in Vancouver.

The government thinks that advertising these events will make them fairer and more palatable, but the morally reprehensible part is that one can pay to get privileged access to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Citizens, voters, and the 61% of voters who did not vote for the current government, will surely view this so-called change with greater cynicism after hearing today's debate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What will cause even more cynicism—and I see my colleague who sat on the committee with me—is that a year ago, on February 1, 2017, the committee tabled a report that it would have liked to see become a bill. Instead, that report was scrapped. I am talking about the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform regarding the complete overhaul of the Canada Elections Act that was supposed to take place. The government spent millions of dollars to consult voters across the country, and we thought that the outcome was that Canadians wanted more fairness when it comes to electoral representation and election financing.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer, appeared before the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. In response to one of my questions, he responded without hesitation that, in the interest of fairness, the per-vote subsidy need to be restored. We are very open to that, regardless of the amount. We know that former prime minister Jean Chrétien set up a public funding system under which the parties received $2 per vote. I imagine that he wanted to leave a legacy other than the sponsorship scandal that characterized the Liberals' time in office. Jean-Pierre Kingsley indicated that, in the interest of fairness, that system should be restored as soon as possible.

Why? It is a shame that Bill C-50 does not make any mention of that.

Bill C-50 is just a superficial attempt to make up for getting caught holding cash for access fundraisers. Now everyone has to advertise their little $1,500 fundraising soirées.

Mr. Kingsley said that electoral fairness is part and parcel of living in a democratic society. Even a party that does not have 20 or 60 MPs should have the right to a fair hearing in the democratic debate between elections and from the get-go in an election.

Taxpayers do not have $1,500 to donate to political parties. I would like to know what the average donation to the Liberals and the Conservatives is. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Why is that? When the current governing party was in opposition, it said it would restore fair financing to take big-ticket financing out of the hands of lobby groups. When people meet a prime minister at an exclusive get-together, they are not there for his good looks or his campaign platform.

They are there for a specific purpose, and that purpose is what people are up in arms about. I think $1.75 per ballot would make every voter's democratic participation more meaningful. That is what democratic reform was all about. The whole idea behind changing the electoral system came from the fact that most of the witnesses told us the existing system is not fair and does not promote diversity of representation in the House of Commons. The current system is set up for a bipartisan House, one with two big parties. That is the plain truth. We think every vote should count.

The government broke its promise. It was a year ago to the day, last Thursday, February 1. We marked the occasion, but a broken promise is nothing to celebrate. The government broke its promise and decided to keep the same system, but it is not reinstating the per-vote subsidy. That would have allowed voters to meaningfully vote for any of the parties, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, or the Green Party, regardless of how likely that party was to win in the riding. That is the issue, and that is what has voters frustrated. They feel like their vote does not count. Historically, it is always the same party that wins in their ridings. There was also concern about voter turnout.

I know that my vote is not totally wasted, even though this government broke its promise to change the voting system. The minimum of fairness that we can ask of such a system is that it ensure that my vote for the Green Party allows it to continue participating in the democratic debate between elections and that it be allocated, in a fair manner, enough money to have its voice heard in an election. That is a democracy worthy of the name. This is about having a legitimate democracy, rather than seeing alternating governments cater to the interests of people seeking access to it in order to influence its decision-making and then thrust upon us bills that benefit those people. That is what is being debated today.

My colleague from Terrebonne introduced a bill. We would be pleased to see the government include its provisions in Bill C-50, restore the per-vote subsidy, and lower the contribution limit to at least $500. I invite all my colleagues to think about this possibility.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on two initiatives the bill is supportive of in an effort to increase openness and transparency. That is what our government has promised, and that is what our government will deliver in the bill.

The first is with reference to political party websites. At least five days prior to events attended by ministers or the Prime Minister, the party's website would need to make it known to people. This would give open notice that these events would be taking place. Also, the report of the attendees to Elections Canada would need to be made within 30 days so everyone would be aware of who was at the event, if the event was more than $200.

In my view, this will provide Canadians with openness and transparency about who attends these fundraisers. This is a very important initiative from our government. I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say with respect to these two initiatives in particular.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill not because of what is in the bill, but rather because of what is not in the bill. We will not support it.

The government claims to want to change the democratic institutions, but it is breaking its promise. Since they were caught with their pants down, as my grandfather would say, they suddenly decided to make some cosmetic changes to improve financing. Does this problem become ethically acceptable if the access to the Prime Minister is legalized? This is the fundamental issue here.

We have nothing against advertising something. In fact, I advertised my most recent fundraising event in the papers. Tickets to the event cost $125, which is an amount people may be able to pay, with a tax rebate. It was not $1,500. The Bloc Québécois does not see anything worthwhile in this bill, which is why we will vote against this supposed improvement to the Canada Elections Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I am wondering whether he thinks that expectations were high. Given what the Liberals said during the last election campaign, most Canadians had very high expectations regarding electoral reform and our democratic institutions in general. However, things are done very differently here in Ottawa.

What does my colleague think about the government's record on this issue to date and does he think that the government will be able to do better with regard to democratic institutions between now and 2019? The Liberal Party's only legacy over its four and a half years in office will be Bill C-50.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would take me a good 20 minutes to answer that question. I would give the government a zero out of 10 for how well it has done so far. I hope that the government will get its act together and show a little less contempt for the 60% of voters who did not vote Liberal.

On the issue of committee work, the first thing this so-called democratic government should do is allow all duly elected MPs to participate. Just because we do not have 12 members and are not part of an official caucus does not mean that we do not have anything to say in committee. Nevertheless, we are automatically excluded.

This government wanted to change the procedure at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but it excluded us from the debate. It did not change the procedure regarding respect for duly elected members, including members of the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois, for example. It is as though that party has a monopoly on deciding what kind of parliamentary democracy we have in the House. In the whole Westminster system, in the entire Commonwealth, this is the only Parliament that operates in this way. It is appalling. It is also part of its agenda. It is unacceptable. If parliamentarians are not allowed to speak, if they are not allowed to vote in committee, where the real action takes place, how are they supposed to represent their constituents?

I had to ask another party to loan me these short 10 minutes I have today so that I could have my say in a debate that will last hours. There are other times, however, when I am not so lucky; when the government uses closure, we cannot speak at all.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-50. I am deeply concerned with this bill and by the unethical behaviour that is demonstrated by the current government, opposite to me.

The piece of legislation before the House is in fact a poor attempt to appease Canadians after the Liberals were caught and called out for holding numerous so-called town hall meetings, or meet and greets, with the Prime Minister or other members of the cabinet.

These were parties where individuals who wanted to attend were expected to pay upward of $1,500 or more in order to get through the door. These parties were held with elite people, like the finance minister, the Prime Minister, the justice minister, and the list goes on.

I can just imagine the price chart at the door when people walk in: $1,200 for 30 seconds with the Prime Minister; $1,500 for 60 seconds with the Prime Minister. Maybe a group of 10 people who are each willing to pitch in $1,500 would get a whopping two minutes of the Prime Minister's time all to themselves. The selfies are complimentary, of course.

Apparently this is the Liberals' way of consulting in an open, accessible, and transparent manner. These are the types of buzzwords they like to use all the time to describe the work they do. However, I stand here today to use my voice on behalf of millions of Canadians who believe otherwise, Canadians who are actually frustrated with the elitism and the hypocrisy that is demonstrated day in and day out by the current government.

The Liberal government has said that it tabled this legislation in order to make its cash for access events more transparent. What the Liberals fail to understand is that these fundraisers in their very essence are unethical. Changing the rules that surround them does not change the fact that they are altogether wrong.

This legislation does nothing to condemn the use of power and manipulation to draw money out of people for the sake of privileged access. This legislation simply seeks to ensure that the Canadian public is made aware of such elite activities.

Bill C-50 simply proposes that all fundraising events that are attended by ministers, party leaders, or leadership candidates are advertised at least five days in advance. In effect, the Liberals are mandating to themselves that they must advertise their events. That is an interesting measure of accountability. It also requires political parties to report to Elections Canada the names of those who attend. However, anyone who donates over $200 already has to have their name made known.

All in all, this bill does nothing to ensure that ministers and the Prime Minister are accessible to all Canadians equally, which is, in essence, a key component of a democratic system. The Liberals are still granting themselves permission to hold cash for access events that cater to the elite and prevent common Canadians from having a voice.

Justin Trudeau claims that he is listening to everyone, that he is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind the hon. member to refer to members in the House either by their title or perhaps their riding name.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

Mr. Trudeau claims that he is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Prime Minister Trudeau—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We can certainly use “the Prime Minister”. That is fine. Members do refer to the former Prime Minister Trudeau; that has been inflected in speeches from time to time and provided that a particular clarification is in the midst of the speech, that works. However, certainly for the current Prime Minister, it is either the title or the riding name.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he is listening to all Canadians and that ultimately he makes decisions based on what is best for Canada as a whole. In fact, what we see is actually very specific attention being given to individuals who have cash in their pockets and are willing to pay for his listening ear. It is not too far of a stretch of the imagination to assume then that the Prime Minister is in fact giving these individuals very key attention and giving their causes and concerns more legitimacy than perhaps the average Canadian who cannot pay for the same access to the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister and his cabinet will deny that this is the case, but Canadians can put two and two together.

There are lobbyists purchasing extremely overpriced tickets in order to gain access to our government leaders, and I doubt any of them are attending just for the selfie. Furthermore, when lobbyists attend these elite events, they are not required to report it, nor is there any way of monitoring their activity. In all seriousness, it can be assumed that anyone paying such steep prices to attend these events has a certain expectation as to the influence that they are being granted. If their only motivation is in fact just to contribute to the financial well-being of their preferred political party, then why would they not simply do this from the comfort of their own home like everyone else?

Speaking of everyone else, let us talk a little about the average Canadian who is unfairly discriminated against by the allowance of cash for access fundraising. Single moms, small business owners, low-income families, and seniors would all stand to benefit from having a bit of time with the Prime Minister or any one of those on the front bench here. Unfortunately, very few of these Canadians can afford the going rate for a ticket to these elite events and thus are forced to wait outside while those who can pay enjoy their special access.

Within my constituency of Lethbridge, I have the privilege of hosting a youth advisory board. This consists of eight very intelligent, highly engaged young people from my riding. They meet with me monthly in order to share their views on federal pieces of legislation and key events that are taking place in our country and in the world. The aim of this initiative is to empower these young Canadians to use their voices to speak out and to advocate for the issues that matter most to them. It is my goal to impress upon them that no matter their age or background, they have an equal voice in our democratic system.

It is because of the implications for these youth and for all young Canadians that I am especially disappointed with the Liberals on their approach to cash for access fundraising. How can I tell my constituents that they have a voice and an opportunity to impact the decisions of the federal government when the Liberals have actually chosen to take equality out of the equation simply to earn cash for their political initiatives?

Political fundraising in and of itself is a democratic concept. It is allowed. It allows citizens to support their ideological beliefs by contributing to the political party that best represents their values, but cash for access events do not respect democracy and uphold the standard that has been set out in our country. It is wrong to have people pay to be listened to. These events consist of people buying access to government officials who have the power to make influential decisions on matters of policy and funding, and this is profoundly undemocratic.

The bill has been brought forward to appease rightly outraged Canadians. The Liberals got caught, so now they are trying to smooth things over. Their motivation is not to protect Canada's democracy. Their motivation is to offer a lacklustre response to getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Changing the so-called transparency rules, as the hon. member across the way mentioned, that surround this practice does not make it any more acceptable. If legislation were passed tomorrow that made voter fraud legal, members would still take issue with rigging an election, and not because all of a sudden something illegal was now legal, but because of our shared belief that it is morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, even if we change the rules around specifics having to do with political fundraising, it does not change the basic moral fabric of the issue at hand. We cannot legalize our way into moral safety no matter how strong the majority government at hand is.

In the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Democratic Institutions he wrote, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant to concerns about our political process”. It is a nice ideal is it not? I wish it were true.

The Prime Minister believes that increasing transparency around these events is the solution. As long as he advertises to the constituency that he is putting his hand in the cookie jar, it should not be a problem, right? Wrong. The events and their underlying principles are the issue, not simply the secrecy around them.

Sunshine does not all of a sudden make unethical behaviour ethical. Being forced to pay money in order to speak with an influential government official is wrong. It is wrong if it is done at a private event or a public one. It is wrong whether those in attendance pay $200 or $1,550. It is wrong whether it is advertised two weeks in advance or not advertised at all. It is simply unethical and undemocratic, and therefore, wrong.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention and see her passion for the need to be transparent. That is what this entire place is built upon. That is what our democratic institutions are built upon, the concept of being transparent and open. That is exactly what the bill does. It puts into the rules that we currently have a level of transparency with respect to the events and how they are handled, how they are advertised, with respect to providing a report of the attendees. That is what we are seeking to accomplish here.

The irony is that the Leader of the Opposition will not even disclose who was at his fundraising events during his leadership campaign. In fact, in the spring it was not until The Globe and Mail was able to bring it out that there had been a fundraiser for real estate and business executives. It was later on that it was discovered that this event actually did happen.

How can the member stand in the House and purport so much need for transparency when her own leader will not provide that information? Will she encourage her leader to provide that information so that the House can scrutinize it in the same way that we are allowing others to scrutinize our activities?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very significant and glaring difference here and let me point it out. That side of the House is in government and this side of the House is in opposition. That side of the House makes decisions that govern Canada. This side of the House asks questions of the government members and the decisions they are making in order to hold them accountable.

The government side puts policies in place and creates legislation. That legislation can facilitate the well-being of individuals, groups, and lobbyists across this country. That side has the power to do that. This side does not have that ability. We ask the questions; they give the answers. They make the mistakes; we hold them accountable. That is how this works.

That side is the one to which people are going to pay thousands of dollars to bend its members' ears in order to influence the policy they are making, the legislation they are putting in place. That is undemocratic. That is unethical. That lacks morality.

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

Mr. Speaker, based on what my colleague just said, one would assume that she is completely against the concept of cash in exchange for access to ministers, for example. Considering the answer she just gave, it would seem that she opposes the entire concept.

I wonder if she can explain why these fundraisers granting privileged access to people were allowed even before the Liberals were elected.

Why are the Conservatives suddenly now saying that they completely oppose this practice when they could have simply banned it a long time ago?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House has one purpose and one purpose only. It is meant to be used as a guise for the Liberals to cover up a problem they have. No one else in the House has this problem, just them, just that side over there. Therefore, they have created the bill in order to get away with this problem. The Liberals thought that if they made it transparent, if they used words like “open” and “honest”, and said, “Look at us, we're doing such a good job, Canada. Pat us on the back for putting our hand in the cookie jar”, they would surely get away with this.

Canadians have seen past that. They have watched the Prime Minister make one unethical decision after another, steal one tax dollar after another, thousands of tax dollars after other thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of tax dollars after hundreds of thousands have already been taken. That is what the Prime Minister is up to. He has been caught and now he is trying to get away with his unethical behaviour by putting legislation in place that says that the government is open, that it is transparent, that it is so good. No, they are not good. Canadians can see past it and now the Liberals are being called out on their unethical behaviour and illegitimate legislation.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his welcome. It is interesting to see that in the House, because the exchanges that were taking place during my speech—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We have resumed debate.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has been recognized and now has the floor.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is timely, because the heckling we are hearing between the Liberals and Conservatives only serves to reinforce the point I wanted to make.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative government only generated more cynicism and changed our elections legislation, making it harder for Canadians to vote.

Now the Liberal government is fuelling cynicism with superficial changes that ultimately will do nothing to correct a serious perception problem that the Liberals themselves created. Everyone who has been watching today's debates heard the Liberals say that the leader of the official opposition was just as bad and that he did the same thing. The Conservatives, for their part, said that what they did was less serious because at least when their ministers attended fundraisers, they met people whose areas of business were not directly related to the department.

I have been an MP for almost seven years now, and I am starting to get pretty sick of giving speeches about all the issues that breed cynicism. Others have talked about this today. As my colleague from British Columbia mentioned this morning, when we go door to door and talk to people, that is what is on people's minds. They say they are not interested, they do not want to donate money to political parties, and they do not want to take out memberships. Worse still, some say they do not even want to vote because of the cynical mood fuelled by stories in the news and legislative half-measures. We will support the changes anyway because one step in the right direction is better than nothing, but everyone needs to understand where this is coming from.

Bill C-50 is a first step. Unfortunately, although I have a lot of respect for the minister, it will probably be the only step. The Liberal government is unlikely to leave behind anything else that qualifies as a legacy of democratic reform.

I have to wonder if it is mere coincidence that this bill was introduced right after the Prime Minister broke his lofty electoral reform promise, right after the dismal failure on that front. This is a big problem for our political system as a whole, not just party financing.

We recognize that some of the changes have made things more difficult. My Bloc Québécois colleague and others spoke earlier about the per-subsidy vote, which is money allocated for each vote received by a party or a candidate.

The member for Beaches—East York spoke about similar issues. He even went so far as to speak about making changes to tax credits for donations. I am raising all these issues to point out that it is possible to be open-minded in this type of debate and to find ways to improve political financing.

We can study all the important changes made in Quebec following revelations about the corruption that occurred over several years, as well as all the changes in political financing and the lowering of contribution limits.

These are all legitimate ideas and we could have a healthy debate about how to provide the financing needed, for better or for worse, to run an election campaign. It takes money to print brochures, inform voters about our positions and important issues, obtain telecommunications equipment for campaign offices, communicate with voters, hear their concerns, and share our positions. We recognize that this is the reality, whether we like it or not.

In that sense, it is very important to find a way to work together in a non-partisan manner to fix this system or at least create a system that instills confidence in Canadians. There are many reasons why that is currently not the case. Sometimes it is because of changes that have nothing to do with political donations as such, but have more to do with the electoral system itself and how it works. I am talking about Bill C-23 from the last Parliament, which had to do with electoral reform, or deform, as people jokingly used to refer to it. That is the type of thing that fuels cynicism and makes all of this that much more challenging.

However, we also have to consider the optics of a minister receiving the maximum donation allowed by law to attend an event with people who have a direct stake in his or her portfolio. What we need to understand is that ministers and regular MPs wield a very different level of power. I agree with the Conservatives on that. I would add that we keep reminding the Liberal government of that fact with each new conflict of interest scandal. Everyone knows that party leaders aspire to be Prime Minister one day and that members of the official opposition or another opposition party could easily end up in cabinet with decision-making power within two or three years. Nonetheless, ministers have the power to make extremely important decisions, hire people, award contracts, spend money, and so on. As such, their ear is much more valuable to have than that of a regular MP.

This does not mean that all members of the House are not prepared to follow the conflict of interest rules—political financing rules, specifically. However, when the government denies that things are different when it comes to ministers and claims in the House that everyone should be on a level playing field, it is insulting the intelligence of those who want to participate in this debate and make real change, so that we can have a political financing system that allows us, among other things, to run political campaigns. People want to see candidates on the ground, which costs money, whether we like it or not, but people also want to have confidence in the financing system.

This morning, the member for Beaches—East York talked about how things work south of the border, and he is right. In other countries, such as the United States, money plays such a dominant role in politics that it has become a problem. For example, my campaign spending cap for my riding would buy about one ad for a U.S. Senate hopeful. We have to acknowledge that our system does have merit. Seeing how bad things are elsewhere makes us feel better about how we do things here, but that does not mean we can rest on our laurels.

Whenever a journalist digs up another scandal, we can pretty much count on the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of Democratic Institutions to say that our system is a good one, spending is in check, and there are strict caps on how much an individual can donate. That is not enough, though. We cannot compare ourselves to the worst of the bunch, places like the United States, where a Supreme Court ruling made the who and how much of election spending a free-for-all. Corporations, unions, anybody can spend as much as they want. Even so, alarming situations that are bad for democracies elsewhere are no excuse for us to be content with the status quo here.

In closing, as I said earlier, there are too many situations in the House that remind me of the cynicism I have seen among too many voters as I have gone door to door as an MP for almost seven years now, and I know that my colleagues have seen the same thing. If we really want to make Canadians less cynical and put an end to political financing scandals, we need to engage in a real debate. The government needs to do more than introduce a bill that is merely a smokescreen designed to hide its broken promises on electoral reform and to try to make people forget about the scandals it has been caught up in. Let us stop pointing fingers and arguing over which political party was worse than the other when in office. Let us seriously consider this reform and the measures that we could change or even those that we could bring back, in the case of public financing.

There are all kinds of interesting questions. Of course, the NDP's main goal when it comes to bringing in true electoral reform is the implementation of a mixed member proportional system. There are also many other issues that need to be seriously considered. That is not at all what we are seeing from this government, and it is not what we saw from the previous government, either.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question really builds off of my question for the previous member where in her response she stated that she saw a different level of accountability between one side of the House and the other. This bill attempts to extend that accountability to leaders of the opposition parties as well. Her rationale was that the member does not have the influence the members on this side have. If it is up to us, he will never have that influence she talks about. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that one day he would have that influence.

Therefore, I am wondering if the member could provide his insight as to whether or not he thinks it is a good idea to extend these provisions so that they do include the leaders of the opposing parties among the others indicated in the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague was too busy heckling the previous speaker to have heard what I said in my speech.

I specifically mentioned that I recognized that we all have an obligation in this place as candidates and certainly as members of Parliament to have the strictest laws and rules in place to ensure that we are not finding ourselves in positions of conflict of interest, or “cash for access”, which is the term that is used. We cannot pretend there is not a difference between an opposition MP, regardless of whether he or she may one day be in cabinet or even in the Prime Minister's seat, and the immediacy of a minister who within weeks or months of having participated in said fundraiser will have the power to give out contracts, to hire people, to spend money, to make all kinds of regulatory and political decisions that are completely different from any decision that I may make after an election two years' down the road, in the event that there is an NDP government and I should be so honoured as to be part of that cabinet.

The point is to acknowledge that when one is in government there is a constant and immediate power that exists.

To my colleague's question, I recognize that extending that to party leaders and others who are in slightly more influential positions than a simple opposition critic is understandable. We are not going to disagree on that point. However, this notion that the government keeps putting forward, as it has with every conflict of interest issue that has marred it since it has been in power, that somehow we are all equal in this place and that it does not recognize the power it holds, is quite disconcerting for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would beg to differ with my colleague from across the way. Leaders of opposition parties carry a great deal of weight. They do hirings. These are individuals who want to become prime ministers. If we go to a leaders' debate or anything of that nature in the future, are the NDP and the Conservatives jointly arguing that Canadians do not need to be concerned, that they do not have to worry about who is paying $250 to be able to meet with the leader of their political party? Why would they want to hide that information?

What this legislation does is ensure there is transparency for the Prime Minister, ministers, and leaders of political parties. Those are individuals who have a great deal of influence today and who want to become prime ministers. Why would they not support that level of transparency? This is something I believe Canadians would want to see.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks so little of the power that he has in cabinet, we would certainly like to do the job for him. Basically, he is saying that opposition MPs stand on the same footing. He is not wrong in the sense that we meet with stakeholders. However, when the Minister of Justice attends a fundraiser at $1,500 a head with people who are in the law profession who are directly engaged as stakeholders with the issues that she has legal, regulatory, political, and financial power over within days, weeks, months, and years of that fundraiser taking place, to not understand that notion, as opposed to me as the public safety critic meeting with stakeholders who are concerned about the government's policies and what direction we should be going in, is absolutely crazy to me.

Let us be clear. To simply divulge even the fact that these cash for access things are taking place is at best a cosmetic change. We will support the baby steps. However, at the end of the day, the public already knows that these things are happening anyway. If the Liberals are really serious about fixing it, then they should be doing more and that is not what we are seeing here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Taxation; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Health; the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, Ethics.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many years ago during the 2006 election, one of the most important issues of the day was accountability and transparency. The Liberal government at the time had been implicated in the most severe case of political corruption in modern Canadian history. People may remember this as the sponsorship scandal. I know I remember.

For years, Liberals linked advertising firms with government contracts, kept high-profile Liberal organizers on the payroll, and generously financed the Liberal Party of Canada, all in return for little or no work, as was later found in the investigation. This operation can be best characterized as a machine, which infected and controlled agencies across the government. The purpose of this machine was to place the resources of the government at the disposal of the Liberal Party of Canada.

After years of Liberal corruption and independent investigations, Canadians had enough. In 2006, they elected a Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to get to the bottom of things and root out the corruption. We introduced the Federal Accountability Act, an act that dismantled the machine built to abuse taxpayer funds and power for the benefit of the Liberal Party. It also helped ensure that future governments, including a Conservative government, would never again abuse the apparatus of government for the benefit of their political party.

This accountability act created measures to protect Canada from political corruption. We created the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and others to ensure all future governments were held to account. I find it quite rich to listen to the speeches of my Liberal colleagues who claim they respect the officers of Parliament and Conservatives do not, when it was in fact our previous Conservative government that created these officers of Parliament to clean up the Liberal mess.

Not only did Conservatives implement accountability by creating these new officers, we created stiff new political financing rules that limited political donations to individuals, banned corporate and union donations, and capped those donations at just over $1,000. In fact, if Conservatives had not implemented these tough new rules, the Liberal Party would still be holding cash for access fundraisers for thousands of dollars, and Canadians would not even have the right to know about it.

This brings me to the fundamental point of this debate. On one hand we have the Conservatives' record of holding government to account, even when it is not in the best interest of our own party, and on the other hand we have the Liberals, with Bill C-50, always trying to find ways to avoid playing by the rule and spirit of the law. In fact, this entire bill would be completely unnecessary if Liberals started acting in the way Canadians expect of their representatives.

No sooner had the Liberal Party regained its former place of power than it set about reconstructing that infamous machine. The machine used to leverage taxpayer funds and power for the benefit of the Liberal Party at the expense of the Canadian people. Ministers began holding fundraisers, a perfectly acceptable and necessary activity for politicians. However, these were no ordinary fundraisers, held in church basements or Legion halls across the land. No, these were exclusive fundraisers for the ultra-wealthy to pay the Liberal Party for exclusive access to decision-makers.

Did these ministers break the law? No, but they showed their true colours. They showed that once given power, they will always leverage every angle for the benefit of their own party at the expense of the interests of Canadians. That is exactly why people elected Conservatives in 2006. Conservatives see the opportunity to abuse power and make laws to prevent that abuse. The Liberals, on the other hand, see an opportunity to abuse the spirit of the law, and rather than take real action to eliminate that abuse, they will go to any lengths to justify it. That is simply not acceptable and Canadians deserve better.

Bill C-50 is a joke. It is a public relations stunt designed to fool the Canadian people into believing that the Liberal Party has changed. Conservatives know better and Canadians are not fooled.

Let us take into account what this bill intends to implement. All fundraisers with tickets of $200 or over must be advertised prominently on the party's website, together with a list of those in attendance and how much they are required to pay. This provision is simply unenforceable and goes to the heart of my argument for why this legislation is a public relations exercise designed to make it appear that the Liberals are doing something about cash for access, while giving them a free hand to continue with these tainted fundraisers.

Take, for example, the fact that any political party could host an exclusive fundraiser, a fundraiser for which no funds may be required for people to attend, but one where the expectation and obligation to donate may be very strong. For instance, an exclusive invitation to a group of wealthy business people or lawyers doing work with the Government of Canada would not require the Liberals to disclose the details of the event, including the participants or how much they are required to pay as long as it is less than $200, but at the event it could be easily made known that the Liberal Party would appreciate those in attendance supporting the party through financial donations: wink, wink; nudge, nudge.

The sad fact is that neither the Federal Accountability Act nor Bill C-50 can prevent parties from engaging in this kind of behaviour. No amount of laws, short of having a member of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner at every political fundraiser, can prevent these activities. The best solution for preventing future abuses of political power for financial gain is for politicians to take a stand and refuse to tolerate cash for access. The public has placed its trust in us, and in turn, expect nothing but the highest standards of personal and professional accountability and for us to make decisions that are in the best interests of the people. I believe Canadians deserve better and I know, as members of Parliament, we can do better.

In fact, there was a time not so long ago that the Prime Minister promised Canadians better. He stated in his “Open and Accountable Government” document, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.” It further stated, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.”

This is the standard that Canadians want from their representatives, and I am ashamed that the Prime Minister has paid lip service to this and broken yet another promise to Canadians. No longer do we have a government that places priority on ethics when it comes to political financing. We have a government that places priority on the illusion of ethics, and that is exactly what Bill C-50 intends to create: the illusion that the Liberal Party of Canada has changed in any way from the days of bagmen soliciting funds from those in business with government.

It is time to stop the illusion and give Canadians what they really deserve: accountable government.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague started by harkening back to 2006. I too can remember 2006. In 2006, we had just signed the Kelowna accord, which would have led to a much better relationship with indigenous Canadians across this country. In 2006, we still had the Kyoto accord, which would have led to greater environmental standards in this country and tackling climate change around the world. In 2006, we had just signed early learning and child care agreements with the provinces. In 2006, we had a government that was focused on economic growth in this country.

Finally, we have that again after 10 dark years under the Conservative government. In addition to having all those things and a government that is focused on the economy, we have a government that is focused on fundraising in transparent and methodical ways that allow communities to understand the process that political parties undergo to receive funds in order to fight campaigns.

It is absolutely ridiculous to me to listen to the Conservatives talk about transparency and not support this bill. Why will they not support it?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is eminently clear to me that the Liberal Party would like to do anything else than talk about its ethical violations or its cash for access fundraisers. My party does not dangle out its members and say, “For $1,500, you can access these top decision-makers.” That is not what the Conservative Party stands for, not now, not in 2006, and not ever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question of my colleague who has not been in the House for a long time. I would like to know what he thinks the government's real intentions are on this issue.

The Liberals decided to make a very small change to the system in order to make it more transparent because the political financing system consists of organizing cash for access events. However, the government decided to continue to give people access to government members in exchange for substantial donations to the Liberal Party.

Was it impossible for the government to even consider completely doing away with this system of political financing because it is working so well for senior members of the Liberal Party and bringing in so much money for the party?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the only member of the House who is younger than I am for that question, and I am proud to serve with him.

It is very clear that Liberals are desperate to hold these cash for access fundraisers, especially considering that the Conservative Party of Canada, yet again, destroyed them in fundraising this year and we are not even the governing party. We do not need to dangle out our ministers and sell cash for access; we have Canadians who believe in this party and this party's principles. We do not need to engage in this sort of cash for access: pay me something and we will give something. We do not need to engage in that sort of activity.

Bill C-50 is a public relations exercise. The government was caught with these cash for access fundraisers, but it cannot get off of this, so it needs to have the bill to make it appear like it is doing something about it. Canadians are not fooled.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, although I do not want to hear more about his referral to age.

Could my hon. colleague comment on what is going on currently whereby the Prime Minister has breached and broken four parts of the Conflict of Interest Act, said sorry, but refused to make right the wrong that he has done?

When we think about ethics and honourable behaviour in this place, could my hon. colleague talk about how the Prime Minister is disrespecting Canada and Canadian taxpayer dollars by what he has done?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that some things do not change. We have a party in government that will use all apparatuses of government, whether it be personal jets or meal allowances, or the power of ministers to fundraise and cover costs for personal pleasure. Canadians expect better of their government, and they expect better of their Prime Minister. There was over $200,000 spent on security and jet costs, which is perfectly understandable, but we had $32,000 on a government jet and over $1,700 on booze and meals. The Prime Minister needs to pay this money back. It was an illegal vacation. He needs to pay the money back.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise and speak and contribute to debate in this place on behalf of the people of Portage—Lisgar.

It seems that too often these days I feel I am standing, whether in question period or during debate, and we are talking about ethical lapses that the current government is showing. I find it disappointing. I think that Canadians are disappointed. However, it seems that more frequently we are talking about some of these conflicts of interest and ethical lapses. Sadly, with Bill C-50, there is no exception to this pattern.

We hear the Liberals portraying themselves as being cloaked in virtue as they discuss the bill on political financing. What Liberals and especially the Prime Minister are very good at is talking a good game. Saying all the right things is the Prime Minister's forte. Doing the right thing, not so much. The Prime Minister, on so many issues around ethics, says one thing with his words and a completely different thing with his actions. Bill C-50 is no different, and the backstory to the proposed legislation is even more telling.

The House will recall how the Liberals were creating for themselves a big ethical crater, because literally the moment they got into government, they began setting up and holding their cash for access fundraisers. Members will remember the Minister of Justice being the guest of honour at a fundraiser held at a Bay Street law firm in Toronto, which was targeting members of the legal community, the very people she was making decisions for and about, including appointing to the bench. She was selling access to herself to these individuals. It was absolutely shocking. Members may also remember the parliamentary secretary, the MP who was the Liberal point man on legalizing pot, as the main attraction who was then lobbied by marijuana advocates and investors at a fundraiser.

Members will remember the Prime Minister himself travelling the land and appearing at more $1,500 fundraisers than any of us can count. These were not just one-offs; there was not just one fundraiser that he went to. The Prime Minister, as we all know, has gone to more fundraisers, and $1,500-a-head fundraisers, than any of us can count. Of course, there was the ultimate cash for access trade-off, where the Prime Minister and his wife called and asked the Aga Khan if they could use his private island for free while, at the same time, he was asking them for public money. Wow, a free island holiday for access to the Prime Minister, and a personal benefit to the Prime Minister. However, I will get to that one a little later.

The Prime Minister has done more cash for access events than any of us care to count, but we all remember the one that came to light where the Prime Minister sold access to himself when he met a wealthy tycoon who was the principal investor in a bank that was seeking federal approval to begin operations. That was a bad idea. He was at another one of these events when the Prime Minister met a Chinese billionaire who also was asking for some government favours. Lo and behold, just weeks later, he made a quarter of a million dollar donation for a statue of the Prime Minister's father, and a donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. It is “You give me this. I'll give you that. You give me cash. I'll give you access. You give me cash. You have my ear.”

On another occasion, a Quebec businessman in the vaping industry bought a ticket to speak to the Prime Minister about Bill S-5. In fact, the gentleman told Global News, “ I saw an open door and I walked through it – and I’ll walk through every open door I see.... I took $250 out of my own pocket to accomplish what I needed to accomplish..”. He got access to the Prime Minister.

What is the problem with Bill C-50? In a nutshell, it would formalize and try to legitimize these cash for access fundraisers. As I said, it attempts to confer a veneer of legitimacy upon them. What Bill C-50 would not do is make these fundraisers legally ethical. They are unethical. Changing the rules to allow deep-pocket individuals to meet the Prime Minister to bend his ear on government business is still wrong.

If the Prime Minister would like to shut down his cash for access fundraisers for the Liberal Party, he would stop doing them. He could tell his cabinet the same thing, to stop doing these fundraisers. He could maybe follow his own guidelines.

Let me read from the Prime Minister's own “Open and Accountable Government” document. He told his ministers, under “Fundraising and Dealing with Lobbyists: Best Practices for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, the following: “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.” Wow, everything I just described moments ago is contrary to what this “Open and Accountable Government” code does.

This does not require legislation; it needs conviction and integrity. It needs men and women and a government that is authentic and genuine and does not just say the right words but does the right thing. That is not what the Liberals and the Prime Minister seem to do.

Why could the Prime Minister not have said he would follow the rules like everyone else? Why could the Prime Minister not have just said this: “I put this out. It makes sense. I have asked my ministers to follow these guidelines. We're going to follow them.” Obviously, it is because the Prime Minister thinks that rules do not apply to him. We have seen this over and over with the Prime Minister. He thinks there is one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for him.

That brings me to another point, and it is with regard to a provision in Bill C-50 that I want to highlight for the House. Clause 2 in the bill would, among other things, enact a new section, 384.4, of the Canada Elections Act. I am going to summarize briefly what this would do.

Section 384.4 would basically put into legislation that if a registered party received a contribution that does not comply with the act, that party would have 30 days to either return that contribution to the donor or pay it to the Receiver General of Canada. The principle behind this is that in the event of a breach of the fundraising rules, the message is clear and the law is clear that the money must be paid back. That is in the bill we are currently discussing. If a party receives money that it is not entitled to, that party cannot just apologize and then smile. It has to pay that money back. That is not a revolutionary idea. Although we have some concerns with Bill C-50, this provision makes sense.

This is not revolutionary. If people are caught taking something that does not belong to them, they give it back, pay it back; they make restitution. We teach our children that when they take something that does not belong to them, they have to make amends, and that includes saying sorry. More importantly, and maybe the toughest part of saying sorry, is actually making it right.

These are rules and lessons that we as parents, as society, and certainly as leaders in this place should be adhering to. However, we are seeing a stunningly hypocritical exception to this principle, and that is with the Prime Minister.

When the former Ethics Commissioner handed down her report which determined that the Prime Minister had violated the Conflict of Interest Act, the House will recall that what he did cost taxpayers over $200,000. If the Prime Minister is truly sorry and wants to be transparent, if he truly wants to put action behind his words, then he needs to right the wrong he has committed. He needs to pay back the taxpayer. He also should look seriously at making the wrong right. He should make the wrong right by paying back the value of that holiday. That is one of the principles of making restitution. If somebody takes a painting that does not belong to that individual, then he or she has to give that painting back or pay back the value of that painting.

It is one thing to talk about legislation like this, but the Liberals are still having their cash for access events. This legislation would do nothing to stop it. We have good rules in place. All we need are men and women of integrity and honour to follow those rules and then show leadership. When they have done something wrong, stop doing it and make it right. That is what we are asking the Prime Minister to do. I would think that all Liberals would agree, as would everyone in the House. We are asking the Prime Minister to not only be sorry but to make right the wrong that he has done.

I expect that the Liberals will not be asking me questions about that, but I would ask them to think about that. In their own meetings with the Prime Minister, ask him to do the right thing: make this right.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. As of right now, the Liberal Party already practises everything in the bill.

By actually adopting this and making it law, it will only become applicable, the openness and transparency, to two more individuals in the House. They are the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the NDP. Why would the member be against having that openness and transparency for her leader and the leader of the NDP, unless they have something to hide?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is my exact point. We identified the problem a year and a half ago, that there were cash for access events going on that were wrong. Instead of Liberals of correcting it, they said, “Gee, what can we do? Oh, I know, let's advertise and invite the media. Let's put that into legislation, and then we will support it.” That is absolutely ridiculous.

When we were in government, and when we are in government again, we did not do cash for access events. In fact, we did the opposite. I remember what our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, told his ministers. He said that we were to stay away from lobbyists, the people in the our portfolios, and not go to fundraisers. Instead, the Liberals did fundraisers. Now they want to make a law that validates what they do.

That is not a good question.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on that point.

I look back at the summer. As people are aware, it was a horrific wildfire season in B.C.. Communities were devastated. The Prime Minister went up there, did a photo op, and, from my understanding, then went down to Vancouver and did a cash for access fundraiser.

I want to contrast that with our leader. He came up, did a community event, and did a fundraiser for the food bank to help people who were wildfire victims. That shows the difference between those two men and their sense of ethics. For one, it is cash for access for his party. For the other, it is to try to make things a little better for the people who were so devastated by the wildfire.

Could my colleague talk a little more about how this is a simple fact of ethics and doing the right thing?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we know about our leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, is that he really understands the struggles that everyday Canadians go through.

Our leader was raised in a very humble, average Canadian family. There is no family fortune. There is no millionaire's stockpile of money somewhere for him. One of the things this has done for him is that he understands what it means for Canadians to have to pay the mortgage, make a car payment, and maybe save some money for their kids. When he is thinking about what he can do to help Canadians, he wants to help with those kinds of things, whether it is putting more money in their pockets or helping with worthy fundraisers, like for the victims of the forest fires.

That is one of the challenges with the current Prime Minister. He really is not like a lot of average Canadians. He was born into a lot, and that is not a bad thing, but he does not seem to understand what the average Canadian goes through. It would appear that he feels very entitled to all of this money and all of this cash for access. Recently, he quite blatantly referred to himself as “The Prime Minister”. He likes to refer to himself in the third person.

He needs to realize that even though he is the Prime Minister, Canadians are concerned about his ethics and his lack of understanding. We saw his response to veterans recently. He needs to get back in touch with Canadians. I am so grateful our leader is doing that, because that is where he comes from.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my parents were both teachers. I certainly paid my way through law school and eight years of education.

I held a fundraiser, and the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice at the time came. We made an agreement that we would not talk about cannabis. It was of interest to both of us and it was of interest to some in the audience, but we were not going to talk about it.

The ticket price was $150. It was $20 for monthly donors. Of the list of 80 people who came, I knew 78 people. The two people who I did not know bought tickets under a different name. When we found out who they were, we gave their money back.

Does the hon. member think that is inappropriate?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is very responsible. If the Prime Minister and the Liberals would govern themselves to that kind of detail, that would show a real desire to not have a type of cash for access.

I recall when we would do the same thing when we were in government. If we did fundraisers, we wanted to ensure the stakeholders, those who were part of our departments, were not part of those. That shows responsibility. Certainly, we would understand if some fell through the cracks. However, I think all of us would want to endeavour to do that.

The examples I cited, and what we have seen, is the exact opposite of that. Here is a simple solution. The Prime Minister should not do those massive fundraisers and the ministers in turn should not do fundraisers with their stakeholders. That would, in a practical way, go a long way to cleaning this up. It is simple and we all should be able to do that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am enjoying the minutia of this debate. Actually, I have a quick solution for this whole problem. Why do we not just lower the upper limit for donations? It is $1,550. Why do we not just drop it to $200? Then we would not have this debate at all. Neither of those sides are really interested in that.

This year, I think I had 1,200 donors through my fundraising efforts through my EDA. My average donation was $50. Most average Canadians are not able to give $1,550 per year to any kind of donation. They will give what they can to support their parties. However, we will not hear those kinds of arguments from either side of the House. For example, in Quebec, the limit is $100. We could end this whole debate if the Liberals would change their bill and lower the limit to be much lower than $1,550. We will not hear that. We will just hear a back and forth about who is more corrupt.

Also, this is a very minor bill. The big changes to electoral finance were really led by the province of Quebec. It brought it in the first limits on spending, then eventually increased transparency until we had some of the best finance laws in the world. Therefore, this is a minor bill in a Parliament of minor bills.

When we read books about the histories of parliaments, we will read about the Parliament that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the one where women were allowed to vote. The kinds of bills we are debating in this Parliament are nothing of that scope. I think any Canadian watching this today would say that this is a minor tweak to existing laws, and I would agree. That is what is going on here. This is what parliamentary time is being spent on. There are no grand ideas coming out of this Parliament, and I find that sad.

If students of democracy looked through the history of democracy, they would see these moments where things were done because within the House of Commons members had the imagination on how to improve the way decisions were made and how to govern themselves.

There is need for a change. Two great academics out of Harvard have now shown how democracy is declining around the world. What is most scary is that young people now are losing faith in their democratic processes. It is not only that they are not voting anymore, some would actually prefer authoritarian processes over democratic ones. This is a widespread problem. We know this from the World Values Survey that was recently released. It is quite concerning. However, we cannot get any data on Canada because we do not participate in that survey.

We can be bold about how great our democracy is, but we do not even measure it. We do not even pay attention to what is happening here because we do not participate in international surveys. This is a big problem.

Pardon me for yawning through these debates, but they really will not do anything at all to improve our democratic problems.

One of the problems we have, which I have talked a lot about, is under-representation in the House of Commons. About 28% of the seats in the House are filled with women, who make up over 50% of the population. We have had lots of back and forth about how we need to encourage more women to run for office. That is assuming this is a supply problem, which is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to think there are so few women in the House of Commons because of lack of supply.

We have anywhere between 50,000 or 100,000 each in our political parties. Are we saying that out of those 100,000 members, we cannot find 338 women, or even half of that, 170 women, to run for each party? That is ridiculous. The problem is demand. Parties block women from becoming candidates. Time and again this is what academic studies, published in referee journals, show.

I put forward a private member's bill that would help remedy that by using electoral finance law, something that could have been put into this bill but was not. Instead, after the next election what we will have is a Parliament that will look almost exactly the same as this one with respect to gender representation. Because we have taken no action in this Parliament, I bet we do not get anywhere near the 50% threshold. We will probably have around 30% of the seats in the House filled with women. How do I know that? Because both the major parties have decided to protect their incumbents. That basically means we have a gender freeze in the House, unless there is a massive turnover of seats, where one party, say our party, runs 50% women candidates and we take over all the seats in the House of Commons.

This means that if we stay the same, in terms of the percentage of seats and how they are distributed, we would not add any more women in here. It means that, when you come back next time and sit in that chair, Mr. Speaker—and I think you do a very good job—you will look out over the House and see the same gender distribution, because we failed to take action in the House. That is a terrible thing. With all the rhetoric we hear from the other side about a feminist prime minister and “because it's 2015”, there has been no action on that side, and there have been opportunities to take action, which have been dismissed and sneered at.

That is the side of the House that has to live with the lack of change. The Liberals are the ones who said they would do something, promised it, and did not do it. It is the same with proportional representation. The Prime Minister said 1,800 times that the last election would be the last one with the first past the post system. That change has gone by the wayside as well.

When all the dust clears from the 2019 election and we see what the House looks like in 2020, it is going to look exactly the same. The parties might switch around a little, but in terms of representation, it is going to be exactly the same. Also, we will not have proportional representation.

Let us go to another problem we are having, and that is with the nomination of candidates. We are having all kinds of problems with candidates not being screened correctly or slipping through the cracks in parties when their integrity is in question. We see it in Ontario. We see it all over the place in political parties. These parties are more concerned about electoral success than they often are about the integrity of their candidates. This problem is found all over the world.

The U.S. fixed this problem in the 1920s after the Tammany Hall disaster. There was massive corruption within that institution. What did it do? It let the state do its party nomination process. It had primaries. Why do we never consider that in the House? We have these little details of bills that really do not mean anything to Canadians, but what we could do is clean up our system and have primaries, not party-run primaries, but state-run primaries. Elections Canada would oversee how parties select their candidates. It would make sure that the processes are fair, and that the voting is fair and beyond reproach. There would not be stacked meetings. The nomination processes would be fair. More than that, the citizens could trust in them.

I have given members three ideas of things we could work on. We could work on bills, where we work on gender parity in the House. I have given members the idea of proportional representation, which the NDP has always fought for, and that side has promised but never delivered. I have also given an idea about how we could fix our nomination process by having primaries. This is all about taking democracy where it needs to go. This is not defending a system that has perhaps served us okay in the past and stacked up well against other systems.

As an example, when the Prime Minister took office in 2015, we were 48th in the world in terms of the proportion of women in our House. Since that time, we have dropped to 65th place, which means that there are 64 countries in the world that have more women in their legislatures than we have here in this place. That is the problem with “because it's 2015”. How can the Prime Minister be the world's most feminist prime minister, when we have dropped from 48th to 65th place in terms of the percentage of women, and we are doing nothing about it? I applaud the gender-balanced cabinet. It is a great idea, but it is only a symbol. It is not locked into our institutions. The next prime minister could come in and have no women in the cabinet.

We need to change our laws and our rules to ensure that we set a world example, that we set the tone and timbre for the world to follow, and not lag behind as we are.

I have listened to the minutiae of the debate, and I have heard the rhetoric, but this is a very minor bill, when we have major problems we should be fixing.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a sense, through the member's intervention, of whether he is actually supportive of the steps that would be taken in the bill to make political fundraising more transparent and to make party leaders, cabinet ministers, and all federally elected representatives more accountable in the way they engage party members and people within their communities to add a level of transparency and openness to the political fundraising system. I would like to know whether he supports the pieces in the bill that would improve transparency, as well as the process we are undertaking.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, but I will not go home and brag about it, because it is so minor. If I am asked if I support the Liberals' bill, I will say yes, but no one will even notice it. It is going to be a very small change to our system. The Liberals have challenged me to support their bill and I would challenge the member across the aisle to come up with something more bold that we could debate in a way that matters. Members can say that some members took money for their fundraising and other members took money for their fundraiser, but we are only talking $1,500. It is not a huge deal.

I would challenge Liberals to do better, but I will support their bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It really does not have a whole lot to do with changing our democratic institutions, the way we elect members and have a functioning modern democracy.

There is a massive public subsidy of the $1,500, in that the first $400 is 75% of taxpayer money and then there is a subsequent decrease. I introduced a bill that provided the same thing for charitable organizations, which are tied to a much smaller amount. One would think there would be the highest degree of accountability, openness, transparency, and expectations for the result that taxpayers get when the mere fact is that for every $1 under $400, they get 75% back. It becomes a massive public subsidization for the parties in our current system.

Could the hon. member comment about the fact that the public is so invested in massive subsidization?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, most countries in the world move in this direction. They realize that if they allow unions, large businesses, or wealthy individuals to control the system, the laws and budgets favour those folks. I would be much more in favour of, for example, a much lower contribution limit at the same level of taxation limits, but also bring back the per-vote subsidy, which would, of course, eliminates a lot of this problem. It is practised in most places. I do not know why we are discovering it for the first time again and again here. We owe more to taxpayers than this, and we owe them better bills than this.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has definitely been a champion for getting more women in this place, and commend him for his work on that. This is the first time in Canadian history that we have a gender-balanced cabinet, which is a major step forward. There are so many more things we could be doing to improve the balance of women and men in this room, and I look forward to working with him on that.

I want to seek a little clarification on one comment he made earlier in his speech, and that was about the limits of campaign contributions. Not that long ago, there was no limit. In recent memory, we have made some significant changes and have seen fairly restrictive limits starting to come in. I thought I heard him talking about having a limit in the area of $200. Could he expand on that? Is that his personal position or is that the position of the NDP? I am curious if he can build upon that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this chamber is where we debate, so I am throwing ideas out for debate. I am bringing forward the fact that there are lower limits in other places. I have been listening to the debate all day. I have heard this going back and forth, and it seems to be stuck. My thought is that lowering limits is one possible way to explore that. It could be talked about in a committee. Why not have witnesses come in from other jurisdictions that have these lower limits?

In the last three years of fundraising, I have raised $500,000. Most years I had between $1,000 and $1,200. The average donation in 2015 was $65. It dropped to $35 in 2016. Now it is back up to $50. The vast majority of donations are around that level. I have a few around $1,500, but they are usually people like my mom.

What we are talking about here is something different. When there are $1,500-a-plate dinners, it is a way for the money to come in. If it were dropped to $200 or something, that would not be the case at all. I would argue that it should at least be studied at a committee. I do not think my party would object, but it is not official policy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join the debate today. I have 10 minutes to talk about the government's ethical challenges, which is far too little time for a topic like this, but I will do my best.

We are talking about the issue of political fundraising. Of course, this is a sensitive subject for the Liberals after the fourth quarter of 2017 results. It is surprising that they want to have a discussion about political fundraising, because the Conservative Party has done so much better despite being in opposition than the Liberal Party has in fundraising.

The Conservative Party benefits from fundraising that relies on smaller, individual donors, and people who believe in what our party stands for. Obviously, we are in opposition, so there is no conceivable benefit that they could get in terms of a quid pro quo type of thing. People donate to our party and, generally, people should be donating to political parties because they believe in what those parties stand for and want to express their support for the ideas that those parties represent. However, Liberal ideas are not so popular right now. Therefore, the government has had to rely on other ways of fundraising, and here we come to their dubious cash for access fundraising program.

What appears to have happened, and there has been a great deal of criticism about this, is that we have had ministers and the Prime Minister meeting with people, in the context of fundraising, who have done business or are looking to do business or to get some kind of benefit from the government at these very high-dollar fundraising events. In some cases, the maximum is $1,500. People pay this money presumably in the hope of being able to talk to a minister or to the Prime Minister about the specific issues that they are dealing with the government on.

This is very different from what was done under the previous government. I know the guidelines, because I was a candidate at that time. We had very strict guidelines in terms of how and to whom we could advertise any fundraising event. We could not even highlight the area that a minister was working. We had to simply advertise him as an MP. They were events that were not dealing at all with the specific subject matter of their ministry. Yes, we had fundraising events where ministers spoke, but they were open, low-dollar events, and provided opportunities for anyone to come. Specifically, they were not about trying to bring in people that were potential clients or people who had some kind of special economic relationship with the government.

As I recall, there was one exception, and it is the exception that proves the rule. There was one minister who made a mistake. Actually, it was not even the minister but somebody else who organized an event for, I believe, the heritage minister. As soon as the mistake was identified, an apology was given and the money was reimbursed. This was the only case, and it was immediately rectified. It was something the Conservatives recognized should not happen.

On the other hand, we have the current government that thinks this practice is acceptable. The Liberals think it is acceptable for, hypothetically, the justice minister to have a $1,500-a-person event where the minister is speaking about how to get a judicial appointment. “Come and pay $1,500 and hear the Minister of Justice speak about how to get a judicial appointment” or “Come to this $1,500 event with the heritage minister where we will talk about how to access art grants,” and it is only advertised to people who are in the artistic community. There are myriad other possible examples. The Minister of National Defence could speak to those involved in making defence equipment, and one has to pay $1,500. These are hypothetical examples, but the government does not see anything wrong with the idea of explicitly fundraising to people who are involved in doing business and want to pay for that preferential access.

Very clearly, it is legitimate for government to be meeting with industry, to be sharing information with key stakeholders, but it needs to do that outside of the context of party fundraisers. These things have to be separate. This is the position that we have taken. It is what the Conservatives did when we were in government. As I have mentioned, we were able to have a very strong fundraising program, because we asked people to donate not because they were getting something in return, but because they believed in the ideas that we were standing for. However, the Liberal Party has a different approach to how they have done this, and I think we have seen time and time again that they have a lack of concern for conflict of interest.

Whenever issues of conflict of interest are raised, they will say, “Do you not trust the Ethics Commissioner? Let us leave it for the Ethics Commissioner.” Then when the Ethics Commissioner ruled that the Prime Minister broke the law, when the Ethics Commissioner ruled that the finance minister had to pay a $200 fine because of his failure in terms of his disclosure, when those things happen, they say, “Let us just move on, and by the way, trust the Ethics Commissioner.”

However, voters of this country are going to hold the Prime Minister, the finance minister, and other members of the government accountable for the choices they have made in those cases where the Ethics Commissioner has shown in reports that they have behaved inappropriately.

The government, in response to its problems with ethics, came forward with Bill C-50, the political fundraising bill. This is an insubstantial public relations exercise, and I might add, not a very effective public relations exercise. Conservatives and New Democrats have spent all day speaking about and highlighting the government's ethical problems. Next time the Liberals try to devise a public relations exercise to cover their lack of ethics, maybe they should go back to the drawing board.

Nonetheless, this is a public relations exercise, a very insubstantial bill that aims to deal with cash for access fundraisers, but it does not in any way prevent the government from continuing with the practice it has been doing. Instead, it requires some greater degree of financial disclosure in the context of these things, but it still allows them to happen. It still allows for situations where the Prime Minister or ministers can charge $1,500 to people that are directly dealing with the government, with their department, and then discuss issues related to the business of government in the context of fundraisers. There is nothing in this law that in any way changes that. It just requires some marginally greater degree of the release of information.

The government has been saying that there has been criticism of its practices, so it will continue with those practices but it will pass a law that does not in any way materially change those practices and hope people will think that something has changed. I have a suggestion for the Liberals. Rather than put forward this public relations bill that does not substantively change anything, why not focus on changing their behaviour to bring it in line with the standards that Canadians would expect when it comes to conflict of interest? That is the problem. The problem is not the law. The problem is the actions of the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet.

If the government members are going to try to respond to their own ethical failures with new legislation, frankly, they can do a lot better. Here is a proposal that I would have for a change in the law to deal with ethics. Why do they not introduce meaningful sanctions for people who break the law? That is the biggest question I get from Canadians with respect to the Prime Minister's behaviour. They say if they drive too fast, if they park illegally, they have to pay a fine. However, the Prime Minister cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in security costs that should not have been incurred, as a result of an illegal vacation that the Ethics Commissioner found to be illegal, yet there are no sanctions.

Most of my constituents think that if we are going to change the law with respect to the government's ethics in response to these issues, let us have a law that introduces meaningful sanctions for those who break the law, especially for the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers. For his troubles, the finance minister was fined $200 which, not to delve too deeply into his personal finances, does not seem like a lot of money. It does not seem like it is going to have a big deterrent effect in terms of future behaviour. Maybe that is something that the government should consider in future legislation.

Certainly with respect to the problems around the fundraising, the government's cash for access program, the bill absolutely changes nothing. It does not address the fundamental problems and the government has clearly indicated that it does not think there is a problem, that it will persist with the kind of behaviour it has undertaken until now. This is completely different from what we saw under the previous government and it begs the question, why does the government not think that people who are not paying for access would be willing to donate? Why do people think it is necessary to engage in these shady types of practices?

We had one suggestion at least from an NDP member musing about the possibility of a return to the per-vote subsidy. I want to say that, on this side of the House, we certainly do not support having taxpayers subsidize political parties.

Let us be very clear. It was the Conservatives who lowered the contribution limit substantially and eliminated corporate and union contributions. We did that as part of the Federal Accountability Act, one of the first pieces of legislation that was brought forward by Stephen Harper. Also, we eliminated the per-vote subsidy. Our democracy is doing fine. We are well-served by the present system and there is no need to return to taxpayers giving money to political parties.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. “Myriad”, it was a good use of that word.

The member does not agree with me on the per-vote subsidy. However, I am wondering if he could perhaps comment on lowering the limit of contributions from $1,550 to $500. Does he think that would solve the problem and would he support that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not personally see an immediate need for that. The issue here is around conflict of interest. Frankly, we will always see cases, regardless of what the contribution limit is, where people try to get around these things. I know that when limits were first set on contributions we had a case involving a Liberal leadership candidate where two members of the same family, as well as their very young children, all happened to give the maximum. Obviously, it is important to make sure that the person giving is actually the person giving and that there is not an effort to circumvent this.

Whatever rules we put in place, we always need to be sensitive to the fact that rules are not enough. It is a question of character. It is a question of the willingness of cabinet ministers, the Prime Minister, and others to abide by the principles behind the conflict of interest laws. That has been the problem in this case.

It is an interesting proposal from the member. However, I do not think changing exactly what that contribution limit is would be a panacea, rather we need to see better behaviour from those who are supposed to be leading this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on the question from my hon. colleague from Burnaby South to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The claim that he has just made that his party does not support taxpayer money going to political parties flies in the face of the reality that the taxpayers of this country, like it or not, and I think many of them would not like it, have to pay for the horrible attack ads that are on our televisions.

The per-vote subsidy allowed a voter to say, “I'd like a token amount, less than $2 a year, to go to this party that I am voting for. They're the party of my choice.” However, with respect to the generous taxpayer support, if they donate $400 to a political party, it costs them $100. I would love my church to get that kind of rebate on the donations made for charitable purposes. However, even more amazing is the amount spent in campaign, so the more that is spent on terrible attack ads on our television sets, the more money that party gets back. Specifically, Stephen Harper changed the rules so that by having a longer writ period, Conservatives got even more money back.

I know this is a place where everybody lives in glass houses. However, let us not forget that the Conservative Party has done a lot of fundraising that was somewhat sketchy in the past. The Conservative Party has been taking the laws and twisting them to get more money back from taxpayers, not less.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, I think my house is made of bricks.

The member spoke about other mechanisms by which political parties get money. Let us be very clear, with the removal of the direct subsidy to political parties, the mechanisms that exist are, first, when a contribution is made to political parties, there is a deduction, and second, there is also a rebate for money spent during the writ period.

If memory serves, there was actually a Conservative private member's bill in this Parliament that sought to equalize the deductions for charities with political parties. I think the member has a good point that there is some unfairness in the process.

[An hon. member]

No, that was my bill. It was an NDP bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

An NDP member may have had this in a previous Parliament, but my memory suggests that it was this Parliament. The member for Provencher had a private member's bill in this Parliament. If the member for Windsor West would like to endorse this Conservative idea, then that is great.

In terms of what the member said about attack ads, I just want to be clear that of course political parties do run attack ads. I do not know if the Green Party ever has, but there are also not-for-profit organizations that run ads critical of political parties. Not-for-profits, as well as political parties, engage in different kinds of political speech.

I do not think we should get into micromanaging deductions that different organizations get just because of the level of criticism that they levy. However, a mechanism that has a deduction for contributing to a not-for-profit organization, a charity, or a political party is very different than a direct taxpayer subsidy. A deduction simply says that if I am giving money to an organization, I should get some of that back because it is a not-for-profit. That is different from a direct subsidy to that organization.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that when the topic of political financing reform comes up, many Canadians' eyes glaze over. It is not the most exciting subject in front of this Parliament, and yet we have heard about 18 or 19 speakers on this topic pointing out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the bill.

I wish the House rules permitted the same level of debate on some of the very important private members' bills that come before the House. Perhaps we could work together to see that happen in the future.

Bill C-50 is important. We only have to look south of the border to see what happens when there are no controls over who donates to elected representatives or how much they can donate.

During the recent U.S. debate over net neutrality, another exciting subject, companies and groups on both sides of the issue lobbied with their wallets. According to OpenSecrets.org of the 535 members of Congress, 495 received campaign contributions from groups who lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality. The telecoms, opposed to net neutrality, donated millions and the Republicans fell in line. The result will be a more limited, more expensive Internet experience for Americans. Thankfully, here in Canada we have largely constrained such obvious vote buying, but that has not always been the case.

In advance of the1872 election, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald and his colleagues sought out campaign contributions from a Montreal shipping magnate named Hugh Allan. Allan donated what would have been a fortune back in 1872, $350,000, to Macdonald's Conservative government and he was rewarded for that donation. The Canadian Encyclopedia says:

After the election, a railway syndicate organized by Allan was rewarded with the lucrative contract to build the Canadian Pacific Railway — the trans-continental railroad promised to British Columbia when it joined Confederation.

More recently, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was implicated in a scandal that became known as the Airbus affair.

My own province of British Columbia used to be the case study for what happens when there are insufficient campaign financing laws. In fact, a year ago The New York Times called British Columbia the “wild west” of Canadian political cash, citing the former provincial Liberal government for its many conflicts of interest and describing the “unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials in the province”. It cited B.C. for having no limits on political donations, and repeated criticisms that under the Christy Clark regime, the provincial government “has been transformed into a lucrative business, dominated by special interests that trade donations for political favours, undermining Canada’s reputation for functional, consensus-driven democracy.”

Thankfully, the new NDP government under Premier John Horgan immediately brought in political finance reforms, including bans on corporate and union donations and limiting individual donations to $1,200 per year. It is good to see civil reforms brought to the wild west.

Meanwhile, with the current federal Liberal government we have seen the cash for access scandal, where lobbyists were sold exclusive access to the Prime Minister by simply buying high-priced tickets to Liberal fundraising events. During the last election, the Liberal Party made a promise to "close political financing loopholes altogether”.

As we look at Bill C-50, the legislation before us today, we see only a timid attempt in that direction. This bill would force some party fundraising events to be advertised five days in advance, and it would ensure that the names of those attending the function are published.

The new rules apply to events attended by cabinet ministers, party leaders, and some leadership candidates. The NDP offered amendments at committee to include parliamentary secretaries and senior political staff but the Liberal members voted down those amendments.

Observers should note that the Liberal government's parliamentary secretaries are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act, but with Bill C-50, they are exempt from the transparency rules aimed at cash for access events. At the end of the day, cash for access events will still go ahead; we will just know a little more about them.

Is the government closing political financing loopholes and meeting its campaign promise? Not at all. What should this bill contain? A 2016 Globe and Mail editorial titled, “Money and politics: How to end the corruption and conflict of interest” said:

Individual donation limits should be low – possibly as low as $100. These rules should apply at all times, including election years and during party leadership campaigns.

While I am not sure about the amount, lowering the limit would absolutely take big money out of the political picture. No longer could wealthier Canadians expect to meet with cabinet ministers or the Prime Minister because only they could afford the steep price tag.

On another issue, a 2017 Senate report titled, “Controlling Foreign Influence in Canadian Elections” found that current law “does not sufficiently protect Canadian elections from being influenced by foreign entities, whether through direct interference or by providing funding to third parties.” Its recommendations, well worth the consideration of this chamber, include a “provision that more clearly states that any attempt made by foreign entities to induce Canadian electors to vote in a particular way is prohibited”, removal of the “six month limitation on the requirement to report contributions made to third parties for the purposes of election advertising”, and “require that Elections Canada perform random audits of third parties’ election advertising expenses and any contributions they have received”. These are provisions I would like to see examined further.

Currently in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, I am often asked about issues that constituents have learned about through media websites. Unfortunately, in many cases, these news websites turn out to be politically prejudiced, are often racist, and in some cases are heavily influenced by foreign elements. They mislead, scaremonger, and prevent fact-based political discourse.

Finally, I would like to point to Bill C-364, introduced by the member for Terrebonne. His bill would sharply restrict individual donations while bringing back a formula for public subsidies to campaigns. While Bill C-364 has not yet had a rigorous review by this House, it is certainly raising some excellent issues that I would like to have seen considered within Bill C-50.

Too often money equals power, but in this place, money should have no influence. While I will be supporting this bill as at least a first baby step in the right direction, I am disappointed that the Liberal government has missed this opportunity to truly strengthen Canada's political financing laws to truly prevent influence peddling and cash for access.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed and agree with my colleague's speech, as I often do.

I was wondering if he wanted to elaborate more on why the Liberals and Conservatives seem to be so scared of even contemplating lowering the maximum donation limit from $1,550 to a lower limit.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question actually has a fairly obvious answer.

When political parties are looking for money, $1,500 as a maximum donation, or $1,550 as it currently is in Canada, sounds a lot more attractive to parties than a $200 limit, depending on who is doing the supporting. I am quite comfortable, from an NDP perspective, and again this is not a party position, but I very much appreciate donations of $200, and I appreciate donations of $25. I would not be at all averse to seeing lower limits to the maximum that can be contributed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear a Conservative member talk about the fact that there was no public subsidy with regard to the contributions for individuals, but we know as a matter of fact that it is done through tax deductibility, and when there is an increased campaign period, as in the last election, then more money from taxpayers is actually going back. It is interesting with regard to the threshold, which is 75% for the first under $400, and then after that it declines to around 50%, until the maximum. It is interesting as well that for municipal campaigns in Ontario, there is no tax deductibility. There is no public subsidy with regard to getting money back from contributions.

I would ask my colleague about whether or not, say for example, if they were not going to cap it at $200, perhaps what should be done is that maybe after the $200 eliminate the actual subsidy from taxpayers. That could be one of the potential models, to quit making other people pay for other people's donations.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have only been a member of Parliament for two and a half years. Prior to that, I was the mayor of Cranbrook, and I can tell the member that the municipal system needs to be fixed in two ways. First of all, we need some maximums on donations to municipal elections. Currently, at least in British Columbia, there are none. If one had the money, he or she could donate $1 million to get a candidate elected in a city of 5,000 people. Second, there are no tax donations at all from municipal elections. When people are out encouraging people to send some money their way, they really have to support them fully in order to write a cheque. I think there needs to be some changes at the municipal level.

In terms of the per-vote subsidy, again, I was not around when that was in place, but one of the aspects I like about it is that it is a bit like proportional representation but it is done through votes. If a party gets a certain number of votes, it gets a certain amount of cash back, and it is done in proportion to the number of votes the party gets. Since the Liberal government has abandoned proportional representation completely, which left many of us feeling totally betrayed, bringing back the per-vote subsidy may be one way to get a little proportional representation back into Parliament and how we do business here.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Last Friday, my office got a call from a constituent who was unhappy about the government's lacklustre action on the TransCanada pipeline expansion. She wondered how she could get hold of the Prime Minister. She had some other things to say as well, such as that members opposite should remember that their sunny ways just are not cutting it for many Canadians. She was not interested in paying $1,500 to meet the Prime Minister, though.

Ralph Klein could have been describing the Liberal government's attitude when he joked, “Edmonton isn't really the end of the world—although you can see it from there.” It might seem like the end of the world from Ottawa, but we in Alberta are hurting, as is Canada, with the resource industry and no pipeline to tidewater. When the energy industry is suffering needlessly, that is Canadian jobs and prosperity out the window. My constituent still wants to know who she can talk to and how she can get to the Prime Minister.

The pipeline not getting to tidewater means that in the U.S., they build a hospital a week and a school every day. It means that in Ontario, they build a car for $30,000, but there is only one market, which takes it for $15,000 then sells it back to us for $30,000. It is why the U.S. can buy cheap oil at a 50% discount, haul it back to New Brunswick, and sell it to us at 100%. However, I digress just a little.

My constituent wanted to know how to get hold of the Prime Minister. We all know that it is a tall order. The leader of a G7 country cannot sit by his phone all day and take calls. However he might want to do that, he cannot. What is the answer? How does she get hold of the Prime Minister or a senior cabinet minister? The answer could be that it might take a while, but she will get a response if she writes a letter or an email. It will come in time, but that is just too long. In Canada, one must get an answer without having to shell out $1,500.

This bill is supposed to make sure that no pay-to-play takes place in this country. That is important. Canadians expect that. Anyone who believes in the integrity of democracy should demand no less.

I have a friend named George who sees the world as black and white, not grey. He understands what right and wrong is, so he has a real problem with politicians. He is a friend of mine, and he has a problem with me. He says, “Don't you guys understand what is right and wrong?” To him, this is a black and white issue, and it is wrong. Making one's case to elected officials is not a privilege only available to those who can afford to do so.

Last year, Maclean's ran a story about what the Prime Minister learned from watching The West Wing growing up. Apparently, the show was a formative influence. Maybe he remembers season one, episode five, when President Bartlet's chief of staff invited various fringe interest groups to meet with senior officials. He called it the “big block of cheese day”. The idea was that everyone has a right to appeal to their government, not just the well connected or the wealthy and not just people who own helicopters and private islands. That is an aspirational example. Maybe the Prime Minister skipped that episode.

Frankly, it is alarming that we even need a bill like this in Canada. Why does the government need legislation to remind itself to act ethically?

I have a friend named Karen who I have worked with for many years. She sees the world as black and white when it comes to ethics. She is a strong, ethical person. She has been involved in politics but cannot understand why we do not get why this is unethical. Can the government not tell right from wrong? It is troubling that it needs Parliament to pass legislation to remind it of such a basic standard, but it seems to think it does.

I have been troubled by some of the headlines on this bill over the last few months. A headline in The Globe and Mail, on May 31, 2017, said, “Liberals’ fundraising bill fails to quell cash-for-access charges”. A headline on iPolitics, on October 3, 2017, said, “Liberals’ fundraising bill needs teeth, says official”. A headline on the CBC, on October 17, 2017, said, “Cash for access fundraising law should be widened, says ethics commissioner”. What, the Ethics Commissioner?

The bill, which should not be necessary in the first place, does not stop cash for access. It is an ethics bill that the Ethics Commissioner has misgivings about. An event needs to be advertised before it is held and then a report on the event has to be submitted afterward. Cash for access could continue; this legislation would not stop it. The bill gives this practice an air of legitimacy. As the member for Calgary Shepard mentioned in his speech on the bill, it is window dressing.

We need more than window dressing; we need a real commitment to ethical behaviour. The Prime Minister is the first Canadian prime minister to break a federal law while in office. He violated multiple sections of the Conflict of Interest Act, and he refuses to pay back the expenses he charged taxpayers for his illegal vacation.

The member for Red Deer—Mountain View made a good point in his speech. The member noted that when the Prime Minister was the member for Papineau, he was forced to repay money that had been inappropriately charged to his member's operational budget. Why is this situation any different? When one breaks the rules, one makes amends. That is what is expected of normal Canadians. The Prime Minister needs to show that he does not think he is above playing by the same rules as the rest of us. He needs to pay that money back.

Needless to say, Canadians expect a higher ethical standard from their prime minister. They expect the standard that the Prime Minister outlined for his cabinet in their mandate letters. Those read, “you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.”

The key points here are that a minister's actions are expected to bear the closest public scrutiny, and they need to go above and beyond just following the law. The reasoning should be obvious: following the law is not enough when it comes to ethical behaviour. If one behaves unethically, one cannot just use the law to cover up for one's actions. Therefore, what happened? A few cash for access scandals, an illegal vacation later, and we have new laws being drafted to make up for these ethical lapses.

I have a friend named Sue. I worked with her, a colleague in a leadership position. To her, ethical behaviour was the foremost thing we needed to practice in our professional lives. It was black and white. We had to understand ethics and make our decisions that way. She was very much respected for her leadership.

When I use public transportation, there are signs indicating that some seats are reserved for those who might have trouble standing. What if those signs were not there? It would not suddenly become ethical to remain seated while someone holding an infant struggled to stand. We would not say, “Sorry, but I won't give up my seat to you unless they pass a law forcing me to do so.” However, that is what the government is doing here. Rather than relying on their own integrity to do the right thing, the Liberals are passing a law.

That is why this legislation will not make any difference. Being required to advertise an event and report on it afterwards would not deter those who are determined to practice cash for access. One has to have moral guidelines and principles. It is right or wrong. Cash for access is morally wrong. The best way to stop cash for access is to stop doing it. It is that simple. There is no law that is needed. As with giving up one's seat on the bus, it is basic ethical behaviour.

If we look at rankings of professions in our country, we will see nurses and farmers at the top of that list. They are believed to be acting ethically. Who is at the bottom of that list? Politicians are at the bottom, because the average Canadian does not think we act ethically, and this is an example of why.

I must emphasize again that the issues my colleagues and I are raising today are fundamental to a strong democracy. Canadians are the inheritors of a great democratic tradition, a centuries-old Westminster parliamentary system with its roots in Great Britain. In some respects, we MPs are the guardians of this proud democratic legacy. Canadians trust us to live up to the highest democratic principles. When the government is caught practising cash for access, that trust is broken. It must be regained. I am sorry to say that for the many reasons I have tried to outline today, this legislation is not the way to do that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River alluded to the fact that cash for access is wrong. The Prime Minister seemed to say as much during the last election when he said that his government would be the most open, transparent, accountable government in Canadian history. He disavowed cash for access fundraising events, with open and accountable government, and then turned around and had cash for access fundraising events, more than 100 in 2016 for the Prime Minister and Liberal cabinet ministers.

In the face of that record, how can Canadians believe anything the Prime Minister has to say?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it goes to the ranking of politicians and where they are in the average Canadian's eyes. On the moral principles of right and wrong, we operate in a grey area far too much.

We do not need laws to make us ethical. Laws do not make us ethical. We either are or we are not. This is an example of where we are not ethical in the average Canadian's eyes, and that is why they rank us at the bottom and put other professions much higher than us. We need to improve on that.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 is another effort by the Liberal government to simply pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. Bill C-50 brings nothing to the table at all on political financing that was not already laid out.

The Liberals like to use the word “transparency”. In fact, it is included in almost everything they produce, including the famous mandate letters. Let us look at the meaning of the word “transparency” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which states it is “the quality of being transparent”, such as “(a) the quality that makes it possible to see through something”, for example, “the transparency of a piece of glass”; and “(b) the quality that makes something obvious or easy to understand”, for example, “the transparency of their motives. He says that there needs to be more transparency in the way the government operates.”

Whoever “he” is, I agree. However, let us go to the next definition, which states, “a piece of thin, clear plastic with pictures or words printed on it that can be viewed on a large screen by shining light through it”.

Therefore, while the rest of Canada has been interpreting the word “transparent” as clear and easy to understand, the Liberals have been putting their own words on a “transparency”, which one will need to shine a light on just to see them. Therefore, let us get the light out and shine it on them.

Let me first, in my own effort to be transparent, say at the outset that I have relied heavily on the remarks of my colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, that were made in this place on June 8 of last year on Bill C-50. It is hard to improve on his remarks. However, I think they are worth repeating here tonight.

For instance, he noted that on November 7, 2016, B.C. multimillionaire Miaofei Pan hosted a fundraiser right at his West Vancouver mansion, and he made the case to the Prime Minister, at this event that he had to pay to get into and that he had to host, to allow Chinese investment in seniors care and real estate developments and ease the rules for rich immigrants from China. What better way to get preferential access than to have it right in one's own house? This took place as the federal government had been reviewing a $1 billion bid by China's Anbang Insurance Group to buy one of B.C.'s largest retirement home nursing care chains.

An article published in The Globe and Mail on December 2, 2016, states:

The Liberal Party has repeatedly told The Globe and Mail “individuals wishing to discuss government business at party events are immediately redirected to instead make an appointment with the appropriate office.”

The host of this fundraiser, Mr. Pan, told The Globe and Mail in an interview that the Prime Minister was “approachable and friendly” when he raised the issues, including Chinese companies' keen interest to invest in Canadian health care for seniors.

This is a long, convoluted story, which is readily available on the Internet. However, the end result, as reported again in The Globe and Mail of February 21, 2017, is that the Liberal government has green-lighted the sale of one of B.C.'s biggest retirement home chains to a Beijing-based insurance titan with a murky ownership structure in a deal that gives China certainly a big foothold in Canada's health care sector. It states:

On paper, a majority stake in Vancouver-based Retirement Concepts—believed to exceed $1-billion in value—is being sold to a Chinese-owned company called Cedar Tree Investment Canada. That is the deal that federal officials in Ottawa announced they had approved.... However, Cedar Tree is the company that China's Anbang Insurance is using to make the acquisition.

Therefore, shining a light on it becomes that much clearer.

Business people are not going to pay $1,500-plus in return for a glass of wine and a piece of cheese, only to be redirected to make an appointment with the appropriate office. They could do that without forking over $1,500-plus and achieve the same result.

However, the goal of Bill C-50 is to legitimize pay-to-play or cash for access events. The Liberals have a majority of government in the House and the bill will pass, but will it pass the smell test with Canadian taxpayers? The Liberals can say that it was the express will of Parliament that this practice be continued, but let me assure members that it is not the express will of this Conservative member of Parliament here. It is only the will of the Liberal Party, because Liberals are the only ones who have the Prime Minister and cabinet in power. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, stay tuned for the Liberal outcry when this changes and they can no longer benefit from this smoke-and-mirrors bill.

There have been over 100 of these cash for access events in the country in the last year. There soirees are not limited to traditional fundraising either. For example, Chinese billionaires have been attending Liberal fundraisers, even though they are not allowed to donate because they are not Canadian citizens. One of these individuals, by the name of Zhang Bin, is a member of the Communist Party. He attended a fundraiser on May 19, 2016 at the Toronto home of the Chinese Business Chamber of Commerce chairperson, Benson Wong. Again, this is according to The Globe and Mail.

A few weeks later, as we have noted in this discussion throughout the day in the House, Mr. Zhang and a business partner donated $200,000 to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, with $50,000 to build a statue of the current Prime Minister's father. It was a pretty good meeting that he had. I am sure that these donations were made out of the goodness of their hearts, with thanks for the glass of wine and the piece of cheese.

There is another example of pay to play, which was pointed out by my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. The finance minister was scheduled to attend a fundraiser in Calgary on November 2, at a cost of $1,500 to get in the door. It was at the home of Shaw Communications president, Jay Mehr. The telecom firm has directly lobbied the finance department eight times. Is there a conflict here? It appears that making an appointment with the appropriate office was not working. Would hosting a Liberal fundraiser prove to be more profitable for the telecom firm? As they say in the movies, Mr. Speaker, stay tuned.

Let me echo this sentiment. The system that is designed to give the incumbent party an ongoing, perpetual systemic advantage is inherently morally wrong, leaving aside the fact that it is giving preferential access to cabinet ministers when the average Canadian does not get the chance. It is absolutely contemptible.

In closing, I would like to say that Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister who believes that there is one set of rules for him and another set of rules for everyone else. We all deserve to live with the confidence that we do not have to shine a light on every word uttered by the government of the day to get the true meaning of its remarks. We all deserve better than the current government.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my colleague's speech, he said that this new system the Liberals would bring forward with this bill, until we win the next election and delete it, would make it so that the governing party would have a systematic preference for raising money, which would make it stronger for the next election.

Does the member think that it is more than just a privilege that would give the Liberals more strength? Does he think that this is close to real corruption?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about that in my speech, the access because of the $1,500. People are not only giving $1,500, but hosting a Liberal event right in their home. Writing a cheque for $1,500 and mailing it in is very different from hosting an event right in their house. We have seen these allegations about the Liberal Party in the last 18 months, whether in Calgary, Toronto, or British Columbia. This does not pass the smell test. Canadians know better than this, and they are upset with this legislation, no question.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many people from Beauport—Limoilou are listening to us this evening, and I would like to say hello to them. It is a pleasure to represent them, especially this evening as we debate Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing) an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This bill basically seeks to legitimize and formalize a palpable and tangible form of corruption in Canada. We first saw this system in the 1990s and 2000s, under the successive governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. However, the federal Liberals have also used this system over 100 times since 2015. They are now trying to formalize and legitimize it by introducing a bill in the House.

What was the system established by Ontario's Liberal government in the 1990s? Two people were responsible for its implementation, namely Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford. Mr. Butts is currently the Prime Minister principal secretary. He works in the Langevin Block. I will always call it by this name because I am very proud of it. Mr. Langevin is a French Canadian who spent his entire career fighting for Quebec's right to have a seat at the cabinet table so that Quebeckers and French Canadians would be heard at the start of the 20th century. Mr. Langevin was also a great source of pride for Macdonald's government. Thus, it is an affront to me that his name was removed from the Langevin Block. I now will return to the matter at hand.

Mr. Butts is principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and Ms. Telford is, or at least I think she still is, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Incidentally, the Prime Minister's Office is another institution that should be shut down immediately. What did those two individuals do when they introduced this system in Ontario? They made sure that ministers—as well as any backbenchers like myself and other members here who want to advance their career and perhaps become a minister to do great things for this country—would have to conform to a system that would relegate the issues that matter to them to the back burner, issues like the Constitution, the development of francophone communities, their ridings, their constituents, and community groups. The members are told that what matters is filling the party's coffers so that they can win elections, not with well-reasoned arguments, but rather by spending billions of dollars.

This system involved quotas for each minister and anyone who wanted to become a minister. For example, the finance minister and the Ontario health minister each had to raise half a million dollars a year. In this tightly organized system, the cocktail parties and fundraisers hosted by ministers had to be linked somehow to their portfolios. Another thing that surprised me about the Liberal members' speeches is that they do not want to talk about the very clear distinction between partisan fundraising events and cash for access events like the ones the Liberals held over 100 times between 2015 and 2017.

Just like every MP in Canada, I have fundraised with members of my own party, the Conservative Party, or with people who were interested in meeting Conservatives in order to better understand our political philosophy, what we can do for Canada, where we are coming from, and where we are going. In short, they wanted to know our ideas for this great country. However, I have never attended a fundraiser where there were 30 people from the same organization or the same profession who had an existing contract, business project, or other interest to bring to the attention of some federal department.

Every time that I participate in a fundraiser, many Canadians who are interested in politics come to meet the Conservatives to find out more about our political party. However, cash for access fundraisers stem from considerable pressure from the Prime Minister's Office. The justice and finance ministers, for example, are required to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Under this system, every minister purposely and carefully comes up with detailed guest lists that include organizations or individuals that lobby the government on files related to his or her portfolio.

Here are two real-life examples. As recently as 2016, the Minister of Justice organized an event in Toronto. I do not remember the exact date, but this event has been discussed at length today. Most of the people who attended were lobbying the government to make changes to the Criminal Code and the Canadian judiciary, or even to become judges. I would like to know if there was even one Liberal MP at that event or whether even one ordinary Toronto resident was there to learn more about the Liberals' political philosophy—if they have one, other than a desire to be in power. In short, the Minister of Justice had to apologize for organizing this event, since it was so blatant.

It was the same thing when the Minister of Finance met with port authority representatives in Halifax. That event was also attended by businessmen who had very important things they wanted to talk to the Minister of Finance about. Here again, they were not card-carrying members of the Liberal Party who wanted to know more about his vision for the country, and nor were they Haligonians interested in finding out what their 35 or 36 Liberal MPs are doing for Atlantic Canada. They were lobbyists with specific interests who knew full well that paying $1,500—that is now $1,575—would give them direct access to the minister and a chance to voice their concerns or make specific requests.

Those are two of the more egregious examples. Luckily, editors-in-chief at Canada's major daily papers got wind of them. Journalists tend to be pretty lenient with this government, but these two typical cash for access functions stank so badly of corruption that the media ran the stories.

The Prime Minister himself said that this practice lacked transparency and that it likely should not be condoned in Canadian politics because it would only make Canadians more cynical and less likely to want to take part in democracy when they see that it takes $1,500 to gain access to the Minister of Finance. When the media reported that and the Prime Minister and the government acknowledged that it was unfortunate for Canadian democracy, the Liberals decided to fix the problem by introducing Bill C-50, which, as I said from the outset, seeks to formalize and legitimize fundraising activities that provide special access.

What questions were raised in the House by my colleague from York—Simcoe, “Let us go back and see what happens. Is there anything in the bill that would stop the exact same thing from happening again?” The answer is no.

He went on, “Is there anything that would discourage it, because that maximum donation to the party is publicly disclosed anyhow?”

No, this will not prevent cash for access fundraisers from happening again. This is a smokescreen. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will prevent this type of corruption in Canada. On the contrary, the Liberal government is merely legitimizing and formalizing rampant corruption and giving itself a leg up when it comes to fundraising in Canada.

We must condemn this. It is absolutely shameful.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I strongly oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this bill. My colleague talked about the fact that journalists picked up the story and covered it for quite a while, since there were so many cash for access fundraising events.

Does my colleague think the Liberals decided to take this approach only because they were caught red-handed? There was a bit of a public outcry. Canadians were not happy that their government could more or less be bought off and that it had no scruples about holding this kind of fundraising activity. Does my colleague think that if the government's practices had not come to light there would be no Bill C-50? Does my colleague think the government would have continued doing what it was doing in secret?

This is an easy response to a problem exposed by the media and the public, who were very upset by this.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current government was caught red-handed. It seems obvious that if it had not been caught red-handed, it would have continued organizing these fundraisers. In any case, it is still engaging in this type of activity in a way. The Liberals are just taking a break from their cash for access fundraising events. They will pick up where they left off just as soon as the bill passes third reading, meaning that they will have legitimized and formalized a type of fundraising corruption in Canada. That is what the Liberals are doing.

Let's look at what they are doing with cannabis. It was illegal, but they saw this new product as an unprecedented money-making opportunity for their friends who are in business or play the stock market. This started 10 or 15 years ago in Canada with medical marijuana. Members of the larger Liberal family figured out that legalized cannabis could earn them billions of dollars.

The government has run gigantic deficits and needs to replenish its coffers by taxing a drug. The sole purpose of legalizing cannabis and this bill is to please the Liberal elite and help get the current government re-elected in 2019. We are going to do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Beauport—Limoilou is quite right that the underlying objective of Bill C-50 is to sanitize the Liberals' sorted cash for access racket. Even though this bill does virtually nothing substantively to improve political financing laws, the Ethics Commissioner did recommend some very modest amendments to the bill. For example, she recommended including parliamentary secretaries, as well as including staff, which would include the likes of Gerald Butts, who headlined a fundraiser for the hon. member for Charlottetown.

If the Liberal government was truly interested in strengthening political financing laws, why would it have rejected amendments recommended by the Ethics Commissioner?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, bluntly, the answer is simple. The only reason the Liberals did not accept any amendments in committee hearings from experts, all the arguments brought forward by the official opposition of Her Majesty, is that the bill was written in a way that would ensure they could continue cash for access starting next month. That is the single goal of the government: to start cash for access again, put money in their coffers, and get back to power in two years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 11.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 11.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No 4 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 6, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Accordingly the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 11.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #439

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 11 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 4.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting against.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with Conservative members voting yea.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP also agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois agree to apply the vote, and we will vote yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and I vote yes.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting no.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #440

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 4 lost.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and vote no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes yes.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #441

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.