Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Preferential access to government

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me flip that around and simply say, for example, that if that same minister met with that particular individual in his office to discuss whatever matter of public policy the individual wanted to discuss, or if the Minister of Finance wanted to have a conversation with constituents in his riding, or if the opposition House leader wanted to raise a particular issue before the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance, subject, obviously, to his rather busy schedule, would do his best to ultimately accede to the opportunity to listen to that particular issue.

I do not accept the premise of the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition wants to talk about the content of the opposition motion, we can do that.

There are two key elements to it. One is that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has the power to investigate. She already has that power. She already has the power the investigate conflict of interest and ethics. That is why she has the title she has.

I reject the premise of the opposition day motion, and the second half of it is to end the current practice of cash for access. I reject the premise of that too. There is no cash for access. There is fundraising by members and there is government business. They are separate things.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proposal from the opposition is, ultimately, that all ministers of the crown should cease fundraising, period.

Do not forget, we live in a Westminster parliamentary model in which ministers also have to be members of Parliament, and they have every right, like the rest of us, to engage in fundraising activity.

The question again is the transparency of the process, which ultimately involves a recording mechanism that allows Canadians to judge for themselves whether there seems to be undue influence and whether there is a direct connection between the fact that someone contributed and a specific public policy outcome. I simply reject that particular premise.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion tabled by the Conservative Party simply states that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner should be able to assess the behaviour of ministers in light of the Prime Minister’s Office’s document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”.

So, why is the Liberal Party afraid of including the very principles it claims to embrace in the law?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Laurentides—Labelle has already noted that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has been engaged with all members of the Privy Council and cabinet on the appropriate conduct that should govern their behaviour.

I would again simply say that this particular motion, in my respectful view, does not add anything to the powers that she already has with her office.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion my party put forward today. One day a week Conservatives get a chance to bring forward a motion that we feel is important and that needs to be talked about.

Right now, Canadians are concerned about jobs and the economy. We looked at this issue and out of respect for Canadian taxpayers, this place, and each one of us as parliamentarians, my party felt it was very important to bring this motion forward today and to deal with it, once and for all. We have been having a very difficult time getting any answers during question period and all we are hearing from the government is what would be described as the doubling down defence of its position.

I will be sharing my time today, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Edmonton West. I look forward to his remarks.

There seems to be a pattern with the Liberals, which we have seen very clearly from the outset. The Liberals say what they think people want to hear. They say what they believe the general public would like to hear. They certainly say what the media would like to hear. They say what they think will sell well on Facebook and social media. They do a very good job of that. Then, in action, they do the exact opposite. We have seen that over and over again.

For me, the examples that have really jumped out are in the budget. Liberals were going to run a very small deficit. Now they are running a massive deficit, without even any discussion of going back to a balanced budget. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that position, the Liberals have said one thing and then done something completely different.

Something I believe in very strongly is this. A policy of the Liberals is to nave a gender equal cabinet. They have said one thing and done another. I find it very insulting that they have given all of the women junior positions, without the same responsibility or ability to manage their departments. I am very black and white, I admit that. I see things in life, and there is not always a lot of grey. It is black or it is white, and with the Liberals it is always grey. They say one thing and then do something completely different.

We saw it with Bill C-22, which would apparently provide oversight for CSIS. The Liberals made a big show about providing this oversight, but, again, this group has no ability to oversee CSIS and the Prime Minister whitewashes all of the reports. It is the typical Liberal way of saying one thing and then doing something completely different. That is exactly what is before us today with respect to the Liberals' approach to ethics and cash for access at which they have been very good.

Let us talk about what happened.

This started very early on last year when we noticed that the Minister of Justice was having big fundraisers in Toronto with lawyers. We immediately said that there must be some mistake, that she must not have realized that it was a contravention of the code of ethics that the Prime Minister himself had set out.

Those of us of this side who were in government knew that because as soon as ministers were sworn in, we were immediately told by the prime minister what he expected of us. He gave us guidelines with respect to avoiding conflicts of interest and told not to raise money with lobbyists or our stakeholders. He expected us to follow those guidelines.

The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, was a man of principle, a man of character, a man who, when he said something, we knew he would do it. No one ever questioned his word. When he said he wanted his cabinet to avoid conflict of interest, even the appearance of a conflict of interest, he meant it. We knew what that meant and we followed it. We were not raising money off the backs of our stakeholders. I will give an example.

When I was minister of state for social development, my portfolio included issues to do with people with disabilities. I was going to Newfoundland to deal with a housing agreement related to my housing portfolio. At the same time, lo and behold, there was going to be a fundraiser. It was not for the Conservative Party or any political party. It was for a wonderful cause, helping people with spinal cord injuries. I was asked to attend that fundraiser as minister of state for social development.

However, I knew the guidelines that the prime minister had set out. I knew how important it was that we follow those guidelines and stay away from even the appearance of not following them. Therefore, I did what most of my colleagues did during our time in government. We wrote to the Ethics Commissioner and asked for her guidance. She gives soft guidance and hard guidance.

Here is what her office told me. In its letter, it said, “in light of the above, I advise that the Minister not speak at the event in her personal capacity since the association is a stakeholder of her department. As I also mentioned, in the examination report for Minister Glover”, and I will pause here because members may recall that Ms. Glover was a former minister in our former government. She errantly started to do a fundraiser with some stakeholders. It came to light and she immediately cancelled it, returned the money, and got an opinion from the Ethics Commissioner. That is called ethics.

I will go back to what the office of the Ethics Commissioner said, “the commissioner indicated that it is inappropriate for stakeholders of Minister Glover's department to be invited to make donations in order to attend a fundraiser at which the minister was also present.” These are not my words. These are the words of the office of the conflict of interest commissioner, saying that cash for access was inappropriate. That was her advice.

The letter went on to say, “I realize that the Spinal Cord Injury Association event is not a political one; however, they are still a stakeholder of the Minister's that received funding from her department”.

The advice was not to attend, so I did not attend. I was extremely disappointed. It would have been a real joy and a privilege to attended. I am going to repeat a quote that it is important, “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do.” That seems to be where there is a huge lapse in judgment by the Liberals.

I will bring us right back to the motion we presented to the House. This is not about what is legal in terms of what Elections Canada says. Of course the Liberals can take donations from every lawyer, every lobbyist, every mining executive. They can take $1,525 from every one of them and they will not break the law. Congratulations, that is what it means to be a Liberal.

On this side of the House, we are not talking about the Liberal absolute lowest standard, just trying to reach the lowest bar ever. Have the Liberals not changed at all? How about the higher bar they set for themselves? I will read about that higher bar:

General Principles

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.

...no preferential access to government...

...no singling out, or appearance of singling out, of individuals or organizations as targets of political fundraising because they have official dealings with Ministers...or their staff or departments.

It is in black and white. This nonsense that the Liberals keep spewing that it is Elections Canada is absolutely ridiculous. I am embarrassed for them. The only thing I will say is that this is sad for democracy and sad for accountability. Frankly they can keep doing it because Canadians will see through it. Canadians are not dumb. They were fooled by Liberals once. They will not be fooled again with this kind of typical sponsorship entitlement where the Liberals will keep saying one thing, do something opposite and get away with it. It is not going to work.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, leaving aside some of the very clear inaccuracies in the hon. member's statement, I want to ask about one thing in particular. If I heard correctly, I believe the hon. member said that there were no senior female cabinet ministers in our government. I would like to know whether the member considers these ministers to be senior cabinet ministers: the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and I could go on and on.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague asked about this. It is incredibly important for us to set an example for the young women who are watching us.

Many times we see women appease men just because it is the easy thing to do. However, strong women do not appease men just because they say something. Therefore, this is my point. A number of ministers have been appointed because of their gender. The Prime Minister said that we would have an equitable female and male cabinet, but he put the majority of the female ministers in junior positions. They do not have deputy ministers, full budgets, or full departments. I would be happy to explain that further for my hon. colleagues. It is disgraceful and sad.

As a woman, if some man were to say to me, “Don't worry, sweetie, we're going to give you that job and we're paying you as much as everybody else, but you won't have the same worries or the same responsibilities, just be happy”, members do not want to hear what I would say to him.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention an event that took place under the previous government and concerned Mr. Duncan. He used his ministerial letterhead. In addition to being censured by the commissioner, he lost his job as minister. He later became Government Whip.

Since my colleague has already been a minister, I would like to know what she thinks of the use of the ministerial title. When invitations are sent out, they are not being sent out solely in the name of a member of Parliament. For example, it is not the member for Papineau who is asking people to attend a fundraising event. People are being asked to attend using the title of Prime Minister, Minister of Finance or Minister of Natural Resources.

Does she think it is appropriate to use the ministerial title to draw people to fundraising events? Personally, I believe there is a problem from the outset when a ministerial title is used, and I think only the title of member of Parliament should be used.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a problem because it sets up not only the perception but the reality of cash for access. Therefore, when a minister is selling a fundraiser based on his or her portfolio and title, he or she is literally saying to people to pay an amount of money so they can come and be part of a gathering with a minister of a particular department and have access to that minister.

Because our practice was not enshrined in the Canada Elections Act, we made it part of the guidelines we followed, which ensured that when there was any kind of fundraising for our local EDA, whether a breakfast or a dinner put on, and we would have a guest there, the member would not attend as a minister but as a member of Parliament. Then we made sure that no stakeholders knowingly were there. We were very careful. However, when that slipped, John Duncan, the former minister to whom the member referred, immediately stepped down and took responsibility.

We are looking for accountability, something where the Liberals will say that they are doing the wrong thing and that they are going to reverse course.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner has called these cash for access arrangements, where people pay $1,500 to get access and lobby a minister in the guise of fundraising, “unsavoury”, and has said, “One wonders whether people are getting unfair access.”

Is it enough to say that the Ethics Commissioner was consulted, or to ask the minister to simply give the money back?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be good for all of us to know if the minister did consult the Ethics Commissioner. Obviously, I think we know the answer to that. I would assume that had the ministers who had done these cash for access events consulted with the Ethics Commissioner, she would have given them the same advice she gave me a number of years ago. Therefore, I do not think that happened.

We certainly want to see the money given back. However, we also want to see these ethical guidelines, which we do believe in, upheld. I had asked a question on the Order Paper, and there is a precedent whereby ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their adherence to these guidelines. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not uphold those guidelines, then he should let the Ethics Commissioner do it and let us get this done.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, 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 Edmonton-West, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Okanagan-South—Kootenay-West, Natural Resources.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I am glad to be speaking to the issue as opposed to asking questions of the House leader.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to address the motion calling on the Liberal government to grant the Ethics Commissioner the authority to enforce and oversee the directives outlined in the Prime Minister's “Open and Accountable Government” document.

Every time I rise in the House, I am reminded of its history, its unique place in Canadian society, and our responsibility to Canadians as their elected representatives. It is this responsibility that means that we, as parliamentarians, are held to a higher standard of acting ethically that goes above and beyond the simple word of law. Our words and our votes, through majority action in the House, are literally the law. This is not a responsibility that should be taken lightly, nor should criticism of bad behaviour be dismissed so easily.

We witnessed in recent weeks a shirking of responsibility by the Prime Minister and the finance minister. Indeed, almost a third of the Prime Minister's cabinet have demonstrated cavalier disregard for their responsibility to be ethical and honest with Canadians. In the mandate letter, written and signed by the Prime Minister, he directed:

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.

This mandate letter specifically and repeatedly references the Prime Minister's much vaunted “Open and Accountable Government” document. I will therefore refresh the memories of members of the House on exactly what that document directed. 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 duty, or otherwise be 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.

If it has not been made clear, there is sincere doubt about the integrity or impartiality of their offices due to these political activities, not only among members of this House but among Canadians across the country.

The fact that the government House leader and the Prime Minister are minimizing and dismissing these concerns is not only a slap in the face of the integrity demanded of our elected officials in this place but is a strong example of their entitlement and privilege when interpreting the rules of our democracy to suit their political needs.

We know that the government is fond of big rhetoric and big deficits, and their actions over the past year demonstrate that they are extremely fond of breaking promises. In April of this year, the Minister of Justice was roundly and rightly criticized for attending an exclusive Liberal fundraiser with Bay Street lawyers. When the minister and the government were questioned in the House, the Liberals, led by the Prime Minister, resorted to the old-style tactics of the Liberals of yesterday. Rather than acknowledge that they were ignoring their own rules, the government shamelessly accused the opposition of racism.

The Liberal response was, as The Globe and Mail stated so accurately, “unworthy of parliamentary debate”. After much denial of any problem with such a blatant conflict, the justice minister finally at least apologized. The Prime Minister and the government House leader should take note.

Perhaps we could have hoped that the Liberals had changed their ways, but recent events demonstrate the same pattern we are very used to. When criticized, be arrogant. When criticized more, be opaque, and deflect as much as possible.

Over the past several weeks, the Prime Minister, the finance minister, and the government House leader have attempted to justify their flagrant disregard of ethical standards by stating that they acted within the confines of the law. They try to justify their actions by saying, “It's okay, everybody does that”, notwithstanding the fact that the previous Conservative government did not.

Perhaps the Prime Minister's, the finance minister's, and the government House leader's justifications would be more accurate if they said, “It's okay, because every Liberal government does that”. Either way, that is just not good enough, plain and simple.

The Liberal government, to put it mildly, is demonstrating contempt for Canadians. They promised to act above and beyond what is required by the law, as is our responsibility as leaders of this country, yet they have no shame in playing dumb when it comes to acting in a grey area.

I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister is so blithely unaware of the fact that his and his government's actions demonstrate not only a clear breach of the ethical policies written at the stroke of his own pen but also demonstrate complete disregard for the trust of Canadians. No, the Prime Minister and the members of his government know very well that what they are doing is wrong.

To quote The Globe and Mail, the Prime Minister “prefers to duck behind the camouflage of an inadequate law” rather than tell the truth to Canadians.

It is at times like these that I am reminded why citizens in countries across the globe demonstrate an almost universal disrespect for politicians. This opinion is not always rooted in fiction. When a leader promises to be open and transparent, then refuses to answer questions when he is asked, Canadians lose faith. When a leader attempts to circumvent parliamentary institutions and ram through reforms because he can, then gets angry when opposition members, heaven forbid, oppose, Canadians lose faith. When the Prime Minister mandates specific guidelines on how he expects his ministers to act and then fails to live up to his own words, Canadians lose faith.

This is not a debate. The Prime Minister actually wrote those letters and wrote the guidelines cited in the letters and was confident enough in his guidelines and his mandate that he signed his name at the bottom of every one of those letters. Try as they might, there is no way the members on the other side of this House could get around the fact that the Prime Minister actually wrote those guidelines.

Perhaps members will understand why we, and Canadians, are just a little upset when the government decides that the rules and guidelines apply to everyone except themselves.

Do not take it from just me. Let us see what other Canadians are saying.

Andrew Coyne, of the National Post, says, “If it isn't influence peddling, it looks enough like it to leave people wondering”. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I am pretty sure it is a duck.

The Globe and Mail calls the Prime Minister's actions an indefensible practice.

Former Liberal deputy prime minister Sheila Copps, not exactly a non-partisan, said, in response to the cash for access schemes, that the Prime Minister should ban these elite fundraisers.

Here is a great one. Try to guess who said this about pay to play:

Ministerial responsibility, the issue of fundraising and the people who were targeted by this invitation, all of those three things should not appear on the same piece of paper. Otherwise I think you're asking for trouble. And it obviously looks like a troubling situation

He goes on:

This kind of event clearly crosses the line.... It is improper, and quite frankly the donation should be paid back.

This brilliant passage, in case anyone on the other side is wondering, came from none other than the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

There is no one, except the Prime Minister and his government, who is prepared to defend the indefensible. Yet rather than simply agree to abide by the rules, the government is happy to continue pretending that it has done nothing wrong. However, it did do something wrong.

It has broken yet another promise. It speaks one way in public and another way in the House. It misleads Canadians by promising to be better than the law and acts against the spirit of the law. It breaks the trust Canadians invest in Parliament. It fails to go above and beyond the literal interpretation of the law and set an example of ethical behaviour for Canadians everywhere, as is our responsibility as the elected leaders of the country.

Canadians are right to be disappointed in the Prime Minister. However, we cannot be surprised. It is our own fault for believing that the Liberals could do better than this. It is our own fault for thinking that the Prime Minister was sincere when he wrote up those mandate letters so long ago. It is our own fault for expecting leadership from the government.

When we look at the Liberal government, like the old Liberal governments before, some familiar things keep popping up. When challenged, it hides behind the lowest standard, deflects questions of ethical integrity, and acts like it is better than everyone else.

I will finish off with a quote from The Globe and Mail, again, as it comments on this scandal: “It's all very Liberal indeed”.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing to see the Conservatives working in co-operation with the New Democrats to try to put a spin on this.

It is very important to emphasize that in fact no law has actually been broken, and where no law has been broken, there is no conflict of interest.

The irony is that those two parties are the ones that have broken the law. Those two parties have been ordered to give back tax dollars, because they broke the law. It is really interesting to see how close the two have gathered together on this.

Is the member prepared to apologize to Canadians for actually breaking the law, something that has been determined by the courts?

The Liberals have been following the law.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Gomery is over, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate how difficult it must be for the member across the way to basically throw himself on the ethical hand grenade that has been tossed in his lap by his cabinet. I hope his colleagues in cabinet recognize his sacrifice and that when the time comes for a sacrifice, he will make it into cabinet himself and will have a higher sense of ethical standards than his current people and will refuse to participate in pay to play fundraisers.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was really full of idealism for our parliamentary system.

Indeed, that system is highly commendable, and we must safeguard it from all forms of cynical attack. The member is quite right. I admire that. One can see that, after one year in this House, he hopes to take on work that will be meaningful to his constituents and all Canadians.

Nevertheless, I must remind him that, if there was a party that undermined the fundamental values of this Parliament, it was certainly his party, the Conservative government, which he was not part of at the time, thank God.

For example, that party constantly used the parliamentary process to introduce completely senseless bills in order to please a voter base that would receive emails saying that such and such was not good and that their rights were being defended on such and such an issue. It was using Parliament for partisan purposes. I should say in passing that it was not much better. In fact, it was quite awful and disgusting.

Here is the question I could ask my colleagues opposite. Is it not true that this state of affairs exists simply because those people are bluebloods who think they are above the law that they put forward themselves?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find that an amusing comment from my colleague on the far, far left over there.

We talked about how there has not been one single new job created by the Liberal government since it came to power, but I am pretty sure that a few have been created in the collection industry, people going after NDP members for their constituency offices.

I agree that the government across the way has to pull up its pants on ethics.

I want to discuss one of the items that came up on the finance minister and his fundraiser in Halifax. He said that it was a consultation process for the budget that allowed him to listen to Canadians.

It was a $1,500 fundraiser. It is quite offensive to believe that Canadians should have to pay $1,500 for a private consultation with the finance minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we think about the Royal Canadian Air Farce, and Dave Broadfoot having just passed away, the member from Kicking Horse Pass would have had a field day with today's debate. Maybe Sergeant Renfrew will be in eventually, or Big Bobby Clobber.

I am wondering if the member could talk about the need to hear from some of the cabinet ministers who are affected by this particular ruling.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Red Deer—Mountain View for bringing up Mr. Broadfoot. I quite enjoyed watching him on TV when I was growing up. I had long forgotten about Bobby Clobber.

It is disappointing on such an important issue that we have the B team or the C team answering all the questions. I appreciate their throwing themselves on the ethical grenade left behind by their cabinet colleagues. It would be nice to actually hear from cabinet members themselves, but as The Globe and Mail has said, they are hiding behind someone's skirts.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members, and I do not think I actually got the exact wording there, but just in a general sense, a member should not make reference to either the presence or absence of other members in the chamber. That is a protocol and a convention that we observe around this place.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with my dear colleague, the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona, a beautiful riding. I want to congratulate him for all the work he is doing on the ethics committee. It is really impressive, especially for someone coming from a family that has nothing to do with federal politics. It looks like he knows quite a bit.

I think everyone remembers the Prime Minister saying with great pride that Canada is back. In fact, what he was actually saying is that the Liberal Party of Canada is back, and with it are the old stories of scandals and friends. They try to hide their natural instincts, but guess what? They are back with cash for access to ministers, even though they are pretending to do otherwise.

What we see in the behaviour of those ministers of cabinet is that two things are certain in life. We are all going to die and a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. It is like a time machine going back to the old days, giving access to big businessmen, to the elites of this country, to Bay Street, again and again.

This shows how disappointing the Liberal cabinet’s behaviour is in light of the expectations it created. The Liberals said they were going to combat cynicism and do politics differently. They said that after the years of darkness, it would be sunny ways. They said they were going to rebuild Canadians’ trust in political institutions as well as integrity in our institutions and in Parliament. However, at the first opportunity, the Liberals flout the laws and principles they took such pride in putting forward. It is extremely disappointing.

Before going on, I have to say I am a great admirer of Georges Brassens. I listen to him as often as I can. During the previous Parliament, the song that came to mind most often was Le temps ne fait rien à l'affaire, or time does not change anything. In the current Parliament, my favourite Georges Brassens song is certainly Les copains d’abord , or friends first, because everything works for the government’s friends thanks to the government’s friends. That is certainly not what Canadians and Quebeckers voted for last year.

Today's motion is interesting because it calls on the Liberals to face up to their own contradictions, to have a look in the mirror and tell us whether promoting something and then hiding behind the existing law is good enough for them. Is that the kind of hope they put into the hearts and minds of people during the last federal election campaign? I do not think so.

The document entitled “Open and Accountable Government” is fairly clear cut, and it is posted on the Prime Minister's website, which is significant. The document lists a number of principles that ministers must follow. That document, which is talked up by the Prime Minister and says that things are going to be done differently, prohibits all “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.”

How can it be that, according to The Globe and Mail, there have now been about 20 such events where people paid $400, $500, or $1,500 to attend an evening with the justice minister, the heritage minister, or the finance minister? They have some nerve. In fact, they have a whole lot of nerve because they get double the payoff: $1,500 for access to the finance minister just days before the economic update and a few months before the tabling of a budget that will see billions of dollars in infrastructure funding flow to our communities.

Still, they would have us believe that a $1,500 dinner at a house in Halifax, an event organized by the Laurier Club, is not privileged access.

I do not know many people in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie who can write a $1,500 cheque to dine with the Minister of Finance. That kind of thing is not about fighting for the middle class or representing ordinary people. It is old-school politics with old-school elites, real estate developers, big-time business people, and people who are on the boards of institutions and corporations under federal jurisdiction, such as the Halifax Port Authority.

The Minister of Finance put himself in an extremely delicate position that is entirely inconsistent with the Liberals' own rules and principles. What a bad example for the public. Imagine if this is how we talked to our children; tell them not to do this or that because it is against the rules, and then turn around and do it ourselves and say that it is not that bad. That is what the Liberals are doing.

They brag about doing politics differently. They apply new standards. They set high standards. Then, they turn tail and hide, saying that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the document presented by the Prime Minister. In fact, why are we not legislating this? Why not take this principle and make it law? That way, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner would have jurisdiction over the document. What are the Liberals afraid of? It is rather odd.

The cherry on top is that their own document also says that their attitude and behaviour should be held to a higher standard than what the law requires. By trying to put a square peg in a round hole, they end up chasing their own tails.

Chapter 4.1 of the Prime Minister's document states:

Moreover, they have an obligation to perform their official duties...in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny. This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law.

Need we say anything more?

What people also need to know is that these events are not open to the public. With respect to the October 13 event in Halifax, a Google search using the words “Halifax”, “Minister of Finance”, and “Liberal Party” does not return any results. It is all very hush-hush. Private invitations are sent out in secret. It is a meeting of friends, hand-picked from the inner circle, who are going to influence public policy. I do not believe that someone is going to pay $500 or $1,500 and not expect to have some influence on the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Finance when tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure money is on its way.

Investing in infrastructure is a good thing. However, why do people have preferential access to the Minister of Finance when they have a monetary, financial and economic interest in influencing the Liberal government's decision?

It is extremely disappointing, and we expected better of the Liberal government. I hope that it will support the motion and that it will live up to its promises.

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

Mr. Speaker, philosophically I am about as far from a New Democrat as a person could possibly be. I listened to my colleague's speech, word for word, and quite frankly, there was nothing I could disagree with. That is probably a first.

I am old enough, I have the grey hair and the grey beard, to remember Liberal corruption and the famous minister who once said, “I'm entitled to my entitlements.” That is a phrase that will go down in history.

More importantly, however, the federal government makes a lot of choices. It allocates, for example, broadcast licences. It determines which pharmaceuticals get approved. It determines who gets fishing licences. It determines where and how airports are built. It determines shipbuilding contracts.

Again, certain individuals, certain elites show up at these fundraisers, pay the cash for access, and let us say their competitors are either not invited or do not show up. Later, some tribunal, some decision, or Treasury Board plan is made, whether it is about a shipbuilding contract, a fishing licence, an environmental licence, or any of a number of decisions that the federal government makes. How does the member think the individuals who do not get those licences or agreements would feel about not being at those cash for access events?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to be congratulated by a Conservative MP. It threw me off a little at first, but he is quite right.

In my opinion, people who are not friends of the Liberal Party must feel extremely frustrated that they are not at the table when major decisions are being made about the future of their communities.

My colleague spoke about the choices the government has made about prescription drugs, for instance. The Minister of Finance just happens to be attending a fundraising activity in Toronto on November 7 that was organized by pharmaceutical companies. These companies are organizing the event and selling tickets, and in return they get the finance minister. If that is not a perceived conflict of interest, I do not know what is.

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

Mr. Speaker, a stakeholder is defined as somebody with a material interest in what somebody else does. If we look at every minister of the crown, every Canadian is a stakeholder because everyone has a material interest in what they do.

Now, the question becomes, who is getting access? Every minister on this side has heard, either directly or through email, from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who paid nothing for that privilege and continue to have that privilege today.

If the member opens the vault at NDP headquarters and sees that the cupboard is pretty bare, will he be pining for the good old days of that per vote subsidy that our friends over there did away with?