Bill C-50 (Historical)

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

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

Canada Elections Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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, 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]

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.

[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.

[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 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?

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.