Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We certainly looked around the world at different examples, but we also looked internally here in Canada at what different provinces are doing. With some rare exceptions, the federal level is definitely one of the strictest with regard to political contributions, even within Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

You've said it, and we've all agreed. We've all attended and hosted fundraising events, and called individuals for fundraising. It can be a difficult thing, but it's necessary for our democracy. Have we struck the right balance here for Canadians to participate in democracy and for their right to know who's attending these fundraising events?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I think so. It is Canadians' right to be able to contribute to a political party, so they can still do that as individuals, but within a reasonable limit. I think the $1,550 that's roughly tied to inflation every year is reasonable. I think that, as has been established at the federal level for many years—I don't know if you know the exact year when the $200 threshold came in. Do you know the year?

[A voice]

I don't know the year.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I think that's generally accepted as a reasonable threshold. I think that's an important threshold, too, because there were suggestions or debates about lowering the threshold. However, important points were raised about the fact that, as Canadians, it is also your right to privately support a party, just as you can go into the voting booth and vote for who you want in secret without anyone being able to know. You can say whatever you want outside of that voting booth. That's not publicly disclosed, just as under the $200 limit you should be able to support a party. All that is reported to Elections Canada, but it's not publicly disclosed because it's your right to be able to support that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll now go on to a five-minute round, and we'll start with Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for taking some time to be here with us today.

For those who are listening today, and I have no doubt, based just purely on your star power as the Minister of Democratic Institutions—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

My star power?

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

Sure.

Anyway, for those who are listening today, I'd like to quickly summarize the actual reason you're here today and how Bill C-50 came to be, and I want to be clear about it. It's because the Liberal Party was selling access to the Prime Minister at events where tickets were costing up to $1,525. That's the reason. These were cash-for-access events, where the Prime Minister has openly admitted that he had people trying to lobby him, which was a clear violation of Liberal Party rules and a clear violation of the Prime Minister's own ethics code. These cash-for-access events resulted in the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying launching investigations. The only reason Bill C-50 is before us today is that the Liberal Party got caught breaking those rules. In fact, the Prime Minister got caught breaking the very rules that he himself created.

Just for a little clarity, I'd like to read from the Prime Minister's own “Open and Accountable Government”, a principle document. I'll just read the first paragraph of annex B. It's a brief one:

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.

Further down it says:

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.

I wonder, Minister, if you could explain why the Prime Minister just doesn't simply abide by the rules, the ones that he himself, in fact, set in place. If he would just abide by those rules, then we wouldn't have to be having this conversation.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you for your comments.

I think, particularly over the past week, we've noticed how important this legislation is, given the fact that the leader of the official opposition has also been engaged in events that have not been publicly disclosed, and initially refused to admit that he was taking part in those events. I think that this legislation clearly outlines why it's important for political leaders to be more open and transparent, particularly about raising money and who they're interacting with. I think that it's a recognition that we can do better. Whether we're in government or the opposition, we should all be doing better to ensure that we're providing that openness and transparency for Canadians to see what's going on.

I do want to comment that lobbyists are covered under the Lobbying Act, and they do have additional responsibilities with regard to how they govern themselves and how they act. That's something separate. Within this legislation, we have made clear—because governments and the Canada Elections Act tend not to regulate the internal activities of parties—that parties still have the authority to determine who can attend fundraisers and who cannot.

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

Okay. Thank you. To me, that didn't really explain why the Prime Minister didn't simply choose to follow the rules rather than making a legislative change.

At any rate, I'd like to ask you about the June 19 fundraising event the Liberal Party held that featured the Prime Minister speaking. It was after promising to abide by the rules of Bill C-50 and be open to the media. Can you explain why, even after that, the Liberal Party staff restricted media access? I know of at least a couple of instances where it happened. The Ottawa bureau chief of the Huffington Post, Althia Raj, and Joan Bryden from the Canadian Press were being denied access, or restricted access. Can you explain why, once the media was allowed inside, they were cordoned off in one particular area and not allowed to mingle with the guests? Can you explain why a Montreal reporter with the Canadian Press was told to leave?

Minister, I don't understand why you're bothering to put rules in place when it's quite clear that the Liberal Party is simply going to break them.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Well, first of all, I'm the Minister of Democratic Institutions, here on behalf of the Government of Canada. While I'm a Liberal member of Parliament, I'm not here on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. Those questions would be better posed to the Liberal Party itself.

However, with regard to the media, it's important to note that we didn't choose to legislate media's access because I believe fundamentally that the democratic institutions of the government should not be legislating the media, but their having the information will provide them more access to be able to pose those questions, to scrutinize, and to hold public office holders to account.

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

I guess the question remains, why put rules in place if the Liberal Party is planning on breaking them anyway?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, Mr. Richards—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

The law is not yet in place. That's why we're here.

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

Yes, but Liberals, they just can't follow them. They'll find all kinds of creative ways around them, as they already have, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Richards. Your time is up.

We'll go now to a five-minute round with Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

I think all of us remember that when Stephen Harper became leader, we never learned who most of his contributors were to that leadership. The caps were effectively non-existent at that time. He wasn't the prime minister yet, but he sure as heck wanted to be—and he did become the prime minister. Andrew Scheer has the same attitude, I believe, that he would like to be prime minister one day. I believe that's why he's doing this.

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

Are you jumping to conclusions there, or...?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have no intention of helping him get there, but his intention, when he sells those fundraising tickets, is to be the future prime minister. That's his objective. So I think it is important that the leaders, the contenders from any party, participate in this.

I don't know if you have any further comments on that, given Mr. Richards' intervention a minute ago.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I think it's important that leadership contestants and leaders of parties are included in this, because we don't know what will happen in the next election. I think all of us on all sides of the table have hopes for what will happen, and will work hard to achieve that outcome, but at the same time, we don't know. For example, whereas someone might argue that as the leader of the third party you should not be subject to these rules, in our case, we were in fact the third party and then formed a majority government. So I think it is important that we do know who is attending these events and contributing to parties.

Furthermore, with regard to leadership contestants, I think it's very important. I think the issue you raised about former Prime Minister Harper, when he was the leader, is very important. We know that he raised over $1 million but only publicly disclosed $144,000 of contributions. That raises a question. That's why the rules were changed in 2003-04.

As I said, this is a continuation of the work done by different governments of different political stripes to ensure that we are having more openness, more transparency, and more reasonableness in our political financing system.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Unfortunately, these rules are not retroactive, I guess.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

No. They're only on a forward basis.