Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Preferential access to government

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a part of it, and it sounds like the NDP are falling into the trap from the Conservatives on this.

Am I to take from the member that the next time they have an opposition day, it might be against volunteers? If someone happens to be a member of the Liberal caucus, he or she is not allowed to have volunteers because that might give accessibility.

I do not think we should confuse accessibility with money, given the amount of accessibility, transparency, and accountability that this government has demonstrated, which is second to no other government previous to it.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seeing the Liberals tripping over themselves to avoid the real question, it makes me wonder if they even read the motion. Allow me to read it:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner should be granted the authority to oversee and enforce the directives to Ministers listed in Open and Accountable Government in order to end the current practice of “cash-for-access” by ensuring there is no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians or political parties.

It is quite easy to understand why people want to make this real, because it is one of the things the government promised.

You might recall, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you went through it like we did, that the Liberals promised real change. Unfortunately now, in their second year and listening to the answers today, we realize that there is nothing real and there has been no change.

Here is the reality. Yesterday I asked a simple question of the Prime Minister, quoting his own document. I will read it, word for word. The Prime Minister wrote in the mandate letter of every one of his ministers the following:

...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality.... This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

Now we have just heard the deputy House leader in his 20-minute speech and his 10-minute Q and A, say about 50 times that they are acting within the law, but that is not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians. The deputy House leader talked about openness, accountability, but he was evading the real issue. Are they respecting what the Prime Minister said was the higher standard that his government would be held to?

Those questions remain wholly unanswered. There are other sections in what the Prime Minister published that are worth repeating, such as, “Ministers and parliamentary secretaries must avoid conflict of interest”, which should go without saying, “the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest”, or favouritism.

He goes on, “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.” We are talking about big, rich companies like Apotex, and we know Apotex' sad history of being involved in fundraising for the Liberal Party, 1-800-Joe Volpe.

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.

To listened to the Liberals say today that these are things that anybody can pay $5 and just walk into. The problem is that it costs $1,500 and it is being held behind closed doors in an elite law office in downtown Toronto. That is the problem. When I asked the Prime Minister yesterday, when I quoted his own words to him that “you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality”, and “This is an obligation not fully discharged by simply acting within the law”, I asked a simple, one sentence question: what did he mean by that?

I feel like George Carlin, who used to read the tax act to get laughs. I will read the Prime Minister's answer, which is a masterwork of equivocation and has nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked him, which was about what he meant by this higher standard. I will read it word for word, because we cannot make this stuff up.

He said, “Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of a government that did not do a good job of living up to Canadians' expectations”. What does that have to do with what he told Canadians? For somebody who said he had a higher standard, he seems to have a lot of trouble explaining it.

He went on,“we know people needed and wanted a government that was more open, transparent,” and this is my favourite part, “and mostly accessible. That is exactly what we have been in terms of pre-budget consultations that the minister has done”. Talk about obfuscation. He is trying to hint that a pay-for-play fundraiser at $1,500 a head in a private law office in downtown Toronto is actually a consultation.

That is amusing, because for the last budget, for the first time in memory, the government failed to include the opposition parties in its pre-budget consultations. I would dare say that if the Conservatives had ever dared exclude the opposition parties from a pre-budget consultation, they would have been up in arms in the Liberal Party, and they would have had half the press gallery piling on with them.

They got away with it. It was amazing. It was the first time in living memory that a government that says it is open and transparent held private consultations heading into the budget. Maybe it means it. Maybe it actually believes that we can have a consultation in an elite law firm behind closed doors. That is not my definition of consultation, and I suspect that it is also not the definition most Canadians have of consultation.

Let us continue with the Prime Minister's non-answer, shall we?

That is exactly what we have been in terms of pre-budget consultations that the minister has done, in terms of consultations that we have done right across the country, and been roundly criticized for for talking too much with Canadians, for listening too much to Canadians.

What does that have to do with anything we were discussing yesterday? We were discussing his own words, that their obligations are “not fully discharged by simply acting within the law”. They were going to be held to a higher standard.

He skated around it:

We have demonstrated a level of openness and accountability that no government up until ours has ever had, and we are proud of that.

I learned in law school that one of the best ways to win an argument is to make concessions. I will make a concession to the Liberal Party. In terms of PR, in terms of coming up with words the Liberals keep repeating that somehow sink in, they are quite good. It is when we spend a little bit of time peeling away—it is like peeling an onion, because we start to cry when we realize just how vapid it is, how vacuous it is—that we realize that this is all it is. It is sloganeering. It is words for the sake of words. It is totally empty.

That is what the Prime Minister showed when he could not answer in his own words yesterday. What did he mean when he said that it is not enough to obey the law? I just read his answer word for word. As I said, we cannot make this stuff up. That is exactly what the Prime Minister said.

This is what we have been seeing with the Liberal government since it got here.

I know that a lot of young people voted for the Liberals because they promised that they were going to legalize pot once they were elected.

We said that there was one thing they could do right away, which was decriminalize it, because nobody, given the fact that we are heading in that direction, should ever have a criminal record that will affect the rest of their lives for possession of a small amount of pot for personal use.

The Liberals are now in their second year. Do members know what the answer has been from the former chief of police of Toronto? No action. Thousands upon thousands of mostly young Canadians will have criminal records that will hobble them for the rest of their careers in terms of travel, in terms of job opportunities. That is a broken promise that is going to affect lives. Pigheadedly, they still will not say whether they will accept having a full pardon for people who were convicted for that alone.

It is the same sort of thing. On fundraising, they said they were going to do better.

The Liberals promised that they would be beyond reproach when it comes to political financing. They drafted stricter rules, which I just read. It is not enough to obey the law, they must uphold a higher standard. However, we heard the complete opposite from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. In his speech, he said about 50 times that they were acting according to the letter of the law. That is not what the Prime Minister promised. This ambiguity is a way to dodge the promises they made to Canadians in this area. There are many more promises, however, and I think it is worth going over them.

On electoral reform, they promised that they would listen to Canadians. Ninety per cent of the Canadian experts they heard from said that they wanted a system based on proportional representation.

In an article by Hélène Buzzetti that appeared in Le Devoir, the Prime Minister said that he believed it was necessary to reform our electoral system because it had resulted in the Harper government. Now that “Mr. Sunshine” is in power, he thinks that it may no longer be necessary to reform our electoral system. If this system elected him, why on earth would we have to change a thing?

It is mind-boggling that a government has the gall to present itself as an agent of change and then, when elected, starts breaking such important promises.

On climate change, who would have thought it? I was there in Paris at the climate conference almost exactly a year ago. I saw our newly minted Prime Minister throw his arms wide open and say, “Canada is back”, to thundering silence in a room of people scratching their heads thinking they did not know we had ever left. He said that everything was going to be different from now on, different until the day he reappeared to say that now that he thought about it, Stephen Harper's climate change plan was all he had. It is the same plan, the same targets, the same timelines.

It is interesting, because yesterday, out of nowhere, the head of the Treasury Board stood up and said that we have a new target. It is 40% for 2030. Really? Can we see the economy-wide plan, which is precisely what article 4, paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement says we have to have? Nothing.

I was there in Montreal in 2005 when the former Liberal minister, today the international affairs minister, said he had a plan. The plan was called the one-tonne challenge.

Why did the Liberals at the time have to say that it was up to individual Canadians to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one tonne? The main poster for the whole thing was someone turning off the lights, as if that could eliminate one tonne per person in Canada. The Liberals were about 40 million tonnes off what they had promised to do, and that corresponded roughly to about a tonne per Canadian. Therefore, it was not the government's fault, the Liberals' fault, that they had done nothing on climate change. It had to be the fault of Canadians. It was extraordinary as an exercise in public relations.

After the Liberals were defeated, and I will never forget, Eddie Goldenberg, Jean Chrétien's former chief of staff, made an interesting admission, the best form of evidence. He admitted that the Liberals had no plan and no intention of respecting Kyoto. They had signed Kyoto “to galvanize public opinion”. What was he saying? It was an exercise in public relations to have signed Kyoto.

Now, I will never agree with the Conservatives for having made us the only country in the world to withdraw from Kyoto, but I will say that at least the Conservatives were telling Canadians that they did not believe in climate change and that they were going to withdraw from Kyoto. The Liberals, on the other hand, were going to fake it. When they could not do it, because they did not have a plan and did not do it, they were going to say it was the fault of Canadians and that it was up to Canadians to come up with a solution. This time it is the exact same thing.

We will increase our greenhouse gases every year of this first and last mandate of the current Liberal government. The reason we will do that is that they still have no plan. They promised a carbon tax for 2018 knowing full well that the statistics for greenhouse gas production for 2018 will only be published in 2020. It will never be measured at the time of the next election. Does this sound familiar? It is a little bit like our economic update this week. They will let us know in 11 years how we are doing. Really?

Some $15 billion is taken away from what was promised to municipalities and put into a privatization bank. I heard a lot of words from the Prime Minister during the election campaign. Funny, we actually did a scour of everything that was said, but we cannot find the word “privatization” in there anywhere. The Liberals said they were going to build public infrastructure. They never said they were going to sell public infrastructure.

On health care, it is the same thing. There is a reduction from a 6% escalator to 3%. That will gravely affect the provinces' ability to deliver health care. The Liberals pretend that they are going to dictate to the provinces precisely what areas they are going to concentrate in. However, the government delivers health care in three areas: in penitentiaries, to the Armed Forces, and on first nation reserves. With a track record like that, it should be a little bit more modest before it pretends that it can dictate to the provinces what they are doing right and wrong in health care.

On labour rights, my favourite part, the Liberals have new buddies in the labour movement. They stand there and emote with them. We saw last week some young people turning their backs, with good reason.

We presented anti-scab legislation. My colleague, the member of Parliament for Jonquière, stood up and presented anti-scab legislation, which is the basic underpinning of any real system of negotiation of collective agreements. The Liberals stood up and voted against it. That is the real Liberal track record on labour rights, and we have to debunk that one as well.

Oh, but can they emote. They can emote about human rights and Canada's role in the world. What we see them actually doing is selling thousands of armoured personnel carriers to one of the most gruesome, repressive regimes on the planet earth, Saudi Arabia. We have films of Saudi Arabia using exactly that type of equipment on civilian populations. We know that military equipment that came from Canada is being used against civilians. We know that Raif Badawi's family, his wife and three children, are in Sherbrooke at the same time the same Saudi government is going to recommence torturing that man, because he dares have an opinion on anything. That is Saudi Arabia. That is the best friend of the current government that claims to be all about human rights around the world.

It is the same government that is negotiating an extradition treaty with China, where there is no rule of law and no independent tribunal and where people are executed and tortured, according to the world's most credible groups, like Democracy Watch and Amnesty International. That is the reality of the Liberals with regard to human rights. Forget about the talking points. Forget about the public relations. That is who they are.

Regarding first nations, there is money missing from the budget, of course, for first nations education. This week, we put forth a motion calling on the Liberals to come up with the $155 million that was ordered by the courts. There are three compliance orders by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We are not talking about our opinion versus their opinion. This is the courts ordering them to spend it.

I will never forget the Liberal member of Parliament for Spadina—Fort York standing up here in the House of Commons and attacking us for coming up with that motion to put that money into those health and social services for first nations children, and then he voted for it. Go figure.

Maybe the House leader is actually going to stand up and vote for our motion. That would be a problem in and of itself, because that would mean that this motion is going to be like all the other things they have talked about. It is going to get flushed into this bottomless Liberal pit of broken promises.

With regard to gender equality, it is the same thing. They will get to it. It has only been 25 years since the courts ordered the government to provide real gender equity for women in this country, but the Liberals always have a talking point on that. They will talk about what they did when they named the government last year. That has nothing to do with how women who actually work in the federal government are treated. The Liberals voted with the Conservatives to impose penalties on any union that would defend gender equality in this country. That is the real track record of the Liberals.

Directly related to what we are living this week, with the police surveillance of journalists, is Bill C-51. During the campaign, the Liberal leader swore up and down that it would be a top priority to fix Bill C-51, which is an egregious, unprecedented assault on the individual privacy rights and freedoms of Canadians. So far, the Liberals have done sweet nothing.

Is it the most transparent government in the history of Canada? We asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness how many journalists are under surveillance by the RCMP or CSIS. He did not answer. In Quebec, there is a royal commission of inquiry, because it has been found out that not only did the Montreal police spy on journalists but the SQ did the same thing. The Quebec government immediately ordered a royal commission of inquiry.

There is preening, posing, pretending, and no action. However, the Liberals get the title. They say that the Prime Minister is thinking about it, hoping that this will go away like everything else. That is the reality of the Liberals. As for real change, that is malarky. It is the same old Liberals on fundraising, which is what we are discussing today, and on all these other issues we have talked about.

The Liberals talk about having reduced taxes for some Canadians and having increased them for the one per cent. In fact, the Liberals are taking the money from the one per cent and giving it to the Liberal Party, because every single one of those donations gets a tax return. Whenever Apotex and all those bigwigs stand behind closed doors in an elite law firm, know one thing. It is not just their money; it is taxpayers' money, and that is why the government has to respect its undertaking to be clear with the public.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating today is the question of preferential access. Fundamentally what we have seen the government do is a series of consultations across the country.

We can talk specifically about the Minister of Finance who went across the country doing consultation after consultation and because he could not be everywhere, he also sent out his parliamentary secretary to do more and more consultations. Added to that, he asked members of the House of Commons to go out and consult too, all to be fed back to him. It was also asked and posted on the Internet so people could consult on the Internet. All of these consultations, all of this access, anyone was welcome to come, whatever party they came from, whatever walk of life. They were welcome to come and all of this was free.

My question is simple. How is free preferential?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I got hold of the application form to become a Liberal MP and there is actually a sentence that explains “you must not embarrass easily”. That is why they can get otherwise honourable people like the member of Parliament for Pierrefonds—Dollard to stand in the House of Commons and pretend he does not understand that $1,500 to meet a minister behind the closed doors of an elite law firm in downtown Toronto is not a free public consultation.

What part of $1,500 does the member of Parliament for Pierrefonds—Dollard not understand? Because that is not free and that is not a consultation. It is pay for play. It is privileged access. It is what the Prime Minister promised to put an end to.

To be fair, the one time the Conservatives got wind of something that involved Shelly Glover, who was then in charge of CBC and other things to do with heritage, the minute they found out, the Conservative Prime Minister Harper required her to pay it back immediately. That is their track record, so stop saying the Conservatives are worse than Liberals are. The Liberals are a lot worse than they ever were.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hit all the points that needed to be hit with respect of the pay for play.

I want to turn back to his recitation of Mr. Sherman, whose net worth is over $4 billion, by the way, and his participation in Liberal fundraisers, both before the election and after the election. At the same time, the Liberals are embarking on a consultation with the provinces on health care reform, which no doubt involves the pharmaceutical industry. Does the hon. member have any thoughts on that connection?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the fact that we have never completed medicare. When Tommy Douglas' model of free universal public medical care was brought in nationally in the 1960s, everyone knew, and Tommy Douglas said it at the time, that we had to complete it with pharmacare.

Two things are worrying us about that. One is the privileged access we are starting to see of some drug companies, which are not going to be fighting for the lowest price. We should disabuse ourselves of that notion. However, the other thing is trade deals like the trans-Pacific partnership. Things like the TPP and CETA will increase the intellectual property rights of drug companies and they also give these companies the ability to sue national governments.

Eli Lilly has a pending $500 million lawsuit against the Government of Canada even though Eli Lilly has now lost twice in the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the problem with these trade deals. The Liberals and the Conservatives are of one mind. They see nothing wrong with that type of ability for a multinational corporation to sue the Government of Canada. I want us to maintain our governmental sovereignty to determine all issues dealing with environment and health in our country.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one theme that ran through the member's comments was that he was looking for substance. On the matter of labour, we had substance to offer the hon. member when this government took steps to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and when the Prime Minister became the first sitting prime minister to meet with the Canadian Labour Congress. With respect to gender, we were all very proud to see the Prime Minister appoint the first fifty-fifty gender parity cabinet in the history of this country. When it comes to youth, we have invested in our youth so they are prepared to fight for jobs. With respect to access, last year, there were over 250,000 exchanges with Canadians and 5,200 submissions were received. This year over 140,000 submissions have been received thus far.

If fundraising were the only way in which the Minister of Finance was accessible, the hon. member for Outremont may have a point, but it is not the only way. He is accessible to all Canadians, especially those who do not contribute a single penny.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is once again making the same Liberal mistake of confusing private $1,500 access with public consultation. He is far too intelligent to make that mistake on his own. Somebody put that talking point into his head.

With regard to gender parity in cabinet, it is a good thing. At the same, it was quickly realized, after those appointments a year ago, that the majority of the women were actually going to be making less than the men in cabinet. How is that possible? It is because the women have been given roles that are paid less. In other words, the superior roles with respect to the classic functions in the House were given to men, and the others were given a different level. Now, the Liberals have changed that again, superficially, by topping up the salary, but it did not change the nature of the role.

With regard to gender equity in real terms, there is a report of the House that has been adopted. It has been over 20 years that women have been waiting for real gender equity in the Canadian government. The Liberals have postponed it yet again. It is all talk, no action; all veneer, no substance; all talking point, nothing real; real change, malarky; nothing real, no change.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important things to note is the connection with Apotex. It has a history.

Apotex and its executives, and the children of its executives, 11 and 14 year olds, were donating tens of thousands of dollars to Liberal candidates and their leadership campaign. It was defended because it was “legal”.

The issue with this Apotex connection, again, is the mere fact that the money going to Liberal coffers before an election writ is called can be used indiscriminately by the Liberal Party to do whatever it wants. That is funded by taxpayers. How is that fair?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is not fair.

I remember the Apotex scandal, involving Joe Volpe. I remember one wag who had put something on the Internet, and it was about an 11 year old saying that he found $5,000 on a park bench, and decided to give it to Joe Volpe instead of using it to help pay for his education. It was transparent, what had actually happened. Everybody in Canada knew it and understood it.

It is also transparent to every person listening to this debate today that the Prime Minister of Canada talks a good game when it comes to ethics, talks a good game when it comes to holding his ministers and his parliamentary secretaries to a higher standard, and the minute we ask him to actually do something about that, it is like all the rest. It tumbles like a house of cards and we realize it is all talking points.

It is all about preening. It is all about posing. There is nothing real for Canadians. That is what is happening with the government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to chide the member a little and suggest that maybe I should ask for unanimous consent to give him unlimited time. I was enjoying his excellent speech and presentation so much.

The leader of the NDP mentioned a number of things that the Liberal government had failed to do when it came to their broken promises. Well-connected Liberal insiders seem to getting on the agenda, and some of the promises that have been kept are obviously paying big dividends for those who have $1,500 a head.

Does the member for Outremont think that maybe the reason we are not moving ahead on some of the issues is because some of the folks in those organizations just do not have quite the right lobbyists yet, are not well enough connected to Canada 2020, and have not bought their shares in their marijuana companies yet in order to capitalize on the policies that are going to be coming?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting and it is consistent with what we have been talking about today.

For example, the Liberals swore up and down during the election campaign that they would lower the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses down to 9%, a promise they quickly broke. Now it is interesting when we look at the names of the companies involved. Corporations are not supposed to be giving; it is individuals. However, if it is all individuals of the same corporation, people start to get the general picture of what is involved.

Small and medium-sized businesses do not have that access. They do not have $1,500 to come into one of these meetings and ask why the Liberals do not respect their promise. That is why Canadians expect a government to do what it promised to do when it was a political party running in an election.

We in the NDP had promised to do something that had never been tried before in the history of Canadian politics, to tell Canadians what we would do once elected, and then once elected, actually do it. It has never been tried up until this date. In 2019, we are going to propose it again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I have seen through some body language of members that they are somewhat concerned that the usual pattern of each party taking its turn during the portion of the debate for questions and comments has been somewhat different. As Chair occupants, we recognize that the time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members. In accordance with the procedures and practices, we will do our best to ensure that time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoke but not to the exclusion of that party, as we saw in this last 10-minute round.

That is the way we will do it. We will also be attentive to members who are particularly present during the day and paying attention to the debate to ensure that as many members as possible can participate during questions and comments.

The final point is that when we start the time for questions and comments, we will take note of the number of members who are rising to judge how we accord and allocate time for members. For example, if only one or two members stand up in a five-minute period for questions and comments, we will certainly allow more time for those members accordingly, and of course the opposite will be true as well.

We are eager to hear the comments and/or suggestions of the members in this respect and we will do our best to abide by our procedures and practices to ensure that all hon. members have the opportunity to participate in this important part of the debate each and every day.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this place and join the debate today. I am proud to be splitting my time with the member for Foothills.

I would like to talk a bit about money and preferential access.

In C.E.S Franks's book, The Parliament of Canada, written in the mid-1980s, he talked about the issue of members of Parliament. Originally members of Parliament in England oftentimes were served a notice akin to jury duty. They would be expected to represent their area and to go to Parliament. Back then Parliament was quite new, and this was often considered a burden by many people because it would take them away from home and would often require them to resolve tough issues. As an institution, Parliament was still quite young. Oftentimes even Speakers were threatened with violence. It is documented that many MPs would leave England when they found out they were appointed to represent their area.

It was not until later when the institution of Parliament began to strengthen and the individual roles of members of Parliament began to become stronger that preferential access was seen. Members of Parliament would count on patrons, usually quite wealthy people, to fund their campaigns, with the expectation of a quid pro quo in return.

Obviously, over the years our country has grown in its own institutions, as has Great Britain. I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud of the rules that we have right now, but as the Prime Minister always likes to say, “better is always possible”.

I am going to address some of the issues with respect to the government's position right now when it comes to enforcing its “Open and Accountable Government” document. I hope all sides of the House will welcome my contribution, because one of the key tenets of democracy is that members of Parliament can speak up, even if what they say may be uncomfortable.

I have spent a lot of time exploring ways that pertain to conflict of interest, particularly how we can ensure that Canadians can have trust in our institutions, which sometimes means that we give our institutions more teeth in a parliamentary sense.

First, let us discuss where there is a problem, using some real world examples. The Prime Minister in his earlier years as the MP for Papineau, and before his election as leader of the Liberal Party, engaged in paid public speaking engagements. What is fascinating about that is while an individual cannot be gifted financial benefits from special interest groups, it turns out that the person can take thousands of dollars if they give a paid speech. In the case of the Prime Minister, it turns out that he was paid thousands of dollars by unions to give speeches, and surprise, surprise, one of the first things he did after taking power, as mentioned by a member earlier, was to repeal union financial disclosure. Ironically, the very law that would have revealed exactly who was getting paid by unions to give paid speeches was repealed by a politician who was paid by unions to give speeches. That is one of the reasons why at the federal level we treat donations from unions and corporations the way we do. However, keep in mind that taking money for a paid speech is potentially a loophole, which the Ethics and Conflict Commissioner is powerless to take action on. That is why today's motion is so important.

Let us not forget that on a year-for-year basis, it has been reported that consultant lobbying has increased 142% under the present Liberal government. That is, in a word, a remarkable increase in lobbying. Let us not forget that it was the Liberals' own national campaign co-chair who was forced to step down after advising others on how to lobby the Liberal government on the energy east pipeline.

On top of that we have a number of Liberal ministers and senior staff members who must work around ethical screens because of ethics-related concerns. By the way, those screens are overseen by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. She is already working with the government on making sure that it fulfills its commitments in those capacities.

Lobbying and ethics-related concerns with the Liberal government are frequently raised, and yet we have not even dealt with the cash for access Liberal fundraisers as of yet, in which extremely wealthy, well-connected insiders are paying as much as $1,500 each to have private, one-on-one access with key Liberal ministers.

Keep in mind that we hear about these things not because the ever-transparent Liberal government tells us about them. No, it is typically journalists who blow the whistle on these kinds of clandestine behaviours. Meanwhile, the Liberals simply shrug and tell us that it is okay because the Wynne Liberals have done even worse provincially, and it is okay to do what they are doing or because of the time-honoured Liberal comment that they are not breaking any rules. Of course, they are always silent on the fact that it is just not right.

Some will say that that is how fundraising works when there are no political public subsidies. I disagree. Yes, ministers are a draw for fundraising purposes. It is common for everyday Canadians to pay $50 or $100 to attend an event and it is a practice, let us be frank, that has gone on for decades. However, secretly sending out invitations to only elite insiders, boasting about special access for a $1,500 ticket, is different. That is something new and something the Liberals are increasingly doing.

Not long ago, I discovered that some Liberal ministers were using a paid limousine service, despite indicating in response to an Order Paper question that they were not. On further investigation, it turned out that one of those Liberal ministers involved was using a limousine that was connected to—wait for it—a Liberal. The point is that this demonstrates that Liberal ministers are not afraid to send taxpayer-provided benefits back to their Liberal supporters.

What happens when someone is paying $1,500 for direct access to a minister? We do not know. However, we do know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner currently needs more power to find out. Ironically, this is something that the Prime Minister has stated in the past he supports. Who knows? Maybe the Liberals will surprise this place and vote in favour of the motion. That has not been uncommon of late.

Before I close, I want to share one further point. Recently, on the finance committee, I had an opportunity to ask the finance minister what value he placed on the input of the finance committee, which, again, is dominated by a Liberal majority. I asked because the committee had recently been travelling right across this great country, hearing the priorities of Canadians for the 2017 budget. To my great surprise, the finance minister replied that he placed no more value on the reports of this parliamentary committee than he did of any other stakeholder.

Again, this is the very same finance minister who was exposed recently as having attended a $1,500-a-plate private, direct access to the minister Liberal fundraiser. What the finance minister is basically saying is that he values equally the input of these $1,500 stakeholders level and a parliamentary committee. Just let that sink in. All of us here are elected to represent thousands of Canadians and he places no greater value on a parliamentary committee, made up of the people's representatives, than he does on an individual stakeholder. No wonder well-heeled Liberal insiders are lining up to pay $1,500 per ticket for these direct access Liberal fundraisers.

In summary, this motion is a complete necessity when we have this particular Liberal government in power. Let us be honest: we have watched how the Liberal government has responded in question period when this subject has been raised by both the Conservative and NDP opposition parties, and it just shrugs its shoulders and does not even pretend to care about these highly questionable optics.

I should add that we all know that partisan politics is always at a premium when it comes to the fundraising practices of political parties. For this reason alone, I suggest that all members ask themselves the question: is better always possible? It is, if we get some agreement. We have had that agreement in the last few votes on opposition motions, and I hope we will get it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will likely do this a little more today, because as I listen to the debate, I want to make sure that people are very clear on the fact that no laws have been broken in relation to this financial issue. In fact, earlier today I indicated the last time we saw laws being violated was under the Conservative government. That is when election laws were being broken. We even saw some members of the Conservative Party go to jail as a result.

Could the member tell us, specifically, when was the last time an election law was broken?

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member stand in this place today and, unlike his usual boisterous self, when he really seems to enjoy what he is doing, he was louder than usual. He seemed quite alarmed. I got the sense that this whole notion has made him very defensive. I note that he asked neither about my speech nor the motion. I think the member is trying to deflect.

I will ask him again. It is an issue of agency. If no rules are being broken by his government, and he does not like the fact that we are alleging there could be some stepping outside of what is legal or ethical, is it right for the Prime Minister's Privy Council Office to be put in charge of adjudicating whether or not those rules are being followed?

I suggest that just as ministers' ethical screens are administered by the Ethics Commissioner, so should the preferential pay-to-play fundraisers be as well.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

There are two very important points that the Liberal Party seems to be ignoring. The first is perception. Ultimately, whether they like it or not, ministers are held to a higher standard than ordinary MPs. The perception of a conflict of interest can undermine the public's confidence in cabinet.

The second is the distinction between the law and the rules imposed by the Prime Minister. All of the mandate letters that the Prime Minister sent to his ministers indicate that the standards ministers are expected to uphold are higher than simply acting within the law, unlike what we have been hearing from the Liberal Party. I think that today's motion will help to resolve that issue.

I would like the member to talk about the fact that the Liberal Party seems to have difficulty understanding that just acting within the law is not enough for a minister of the crown.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The Prime Minister's own document says:

“This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.”

The Prime Minister's own document says that it is not sufficient to act within the rules, but that it has to be seen as acting further than that. That brings in an ethical element.

The Liberal Party member opposite seemed very defensive. As a matter of fact, those backbench MPs do not know, and in fact none of us do. So the best thing the government could do is to follow the advice of the NDP, and of course the Conservatives, and give these things to an independent process that could look at, investigate, and rule on these things in a way that is fair, impartial and, for the most part, respectful of this institution.

I appreciate the member's question. I just hope that we see Liberal members deciding that better is always possible as well.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this. I would like to invite the finance minister, the trade minister, the minister of innovation, and the Minister of Natural Resources to come on down and play The Price Is Right, because it seems as if they will sell their integrity and whatever it takes to get ahead as long as the price is right. That seems to be the game that the Liberal Party is playing with this. Who knows what the showcase showdown will be at the end of this show? I am sure that those who are spending $1,500 to attend these exclusive events will be the ones who will enjoy the benefits of the showcase showdown. However, the message I would like to leave for those who have paid the $1,500 to get these exclusive opportunities to shake hands with and wag the ear of the ministers is that they have overbid. A smarter bid of one dollar would have been a better investment, also of their time.

I want to go back to what the Prime Minister said after he was elected a year ago. I quote from annex B, which states:

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

The Prime Minister himself clearly stated to the ministers and parliamentary secretaries that 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 or political parties.

A lot of the questions we are getting from across the floor are asking whether any laws were broken. The election laws were not broken, but what was broken was a very profound promise by the Prime Minister to do things differently.

He states in that quote, “must avoid conflict of interest” or “the appearance of conflict of interest”.

It is quite obvious that these statements are not worth the paper they are written on. We are back to the age-old Liberal mantra that they are entitled to their entitlements no matter what the cost. Again, if the price is right, they will be there to try to grant whatever it is those people are asking for. I would like to talk about some of those who have done so already, and we are barely just over a year into their mandate.

The Minister of Natural Resources attended an event on August 29 in Edmonton at the offices of MacPherson Leslie and Tyerman. This is the minister for natural resources, mining, oil and gas, forestry, and nuclear energy. The expertise of this law firm with which he had a private meeting just happens to be mining and resource permits and regulations. Not only was this a meeting with this law firm, but it was a private party, and the only people who were allowed to attend were people who paid the $1,500 fee to join the Liberal Laurier Club, which is an exclusive fundraising arm of the Liberal Party. Therefore, to say that this was an open consultation with the energy sector or stakeholders in the mining or oil and gas sector, I think, is quite disingenuous. This was an event exclusively for members of the Liberal Laurier fundraising club, who have paid a $1,500 membership fee, to get an opportunity to speak with the Minister of Natural Resources.

I could tell members right now that, of the 100,000 Albertan energy workers who are out of work, not one has had the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Natural Resources. They are the ones who need that $1,500 to pay their mortgage because they are out of work, and yet a very exclusive, elite group of lawyers in downtown Edmonton has the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Natural Resources. I am certain that mining and resource development permits were a hot topic at that meeting. I am sure there are thousands of Alberta energy workers right now who would love to have an opportunity to sit down with the minister of natural resources and talk about some of the things that they on the ground feel the minister would be able to implement, such as policies and regulations that would help them get back to work, rather than spending his time meeting with lawyers in downtown Edmonton. However, the unemployed energy workers simply do not have the $1,500 or probably the connections to have that opportunity to meet personally with the Minister of Natural Resources.

He is obviously not alone. On April 7, the Minister of Justice attended a Liberal fundraiser hosted by a prominent Bay Street law firm at $500 a ticket. Why would the Minister of Justice be meeting exclusively with a law firm in downtown Toronto?

Let us keep going.

The Minister of Justice attended another event, this time for only $1,000 a ticket—she had a discount—on April 28. This was a meeting in Vancouver and included Gordon and Catherine McCauley. Gordon just happens to be CEO of Viable Healthworks and director of Centre for Drug Research and Development. I am sure they were talking about anything other than marijuana laws or decriminalizing marijuana. I am sure those were not topics at that event.

The Minister of International Tradewill be attending a Liberal Party of Canada event that advertises a wonderful evening with the Minister of International Trade, in Toronto. When I go to that website and click on it to get a password to attend, I cannot get that password. This is supposed to be open. If I want an opportunity to talk to theMinister of International Trade about what happened with CETA or what is going on with the trans-Pacific partnership, which farmers and ranchers in southern Alberta are very eager to see proceed, unfortunately, I do not have access to what is supposed to be an open and transparent process to meet with government members of Parliament, ministers.

The finance ministerrecently had an event in Halifax, on October 13. The ticket price for that event was $1,500. Again, that was pretty exclusive company. Fifteen business executives, including land developers, bankers, and mortgage brokers, each paid $1,500 to have an opportunity to meet with the finance minister. I am sure they were not talking about downtown Halifax developments or the Halifax Port Authority. I am sure it was just to get some consultation on the upcoming budget, which will be much better than we heard in the update, hopefully.

Again, I would love to carry on.

I am going to add the innovation minister. He was the top guest at a Vancouver event, where the ticket price was $1,500. He also must have had a tough time, as he is taking a discount. His next one is at a private residence where the tickets are only $400.

The Prime Minister himself is not free from these either. He has attended 17 of these, some of them with a ticket price as high as $1,525.

The Liberals have 89 of these events planned over the next few months. Despite the rhetoric we are hearing in question period or here today about not breaking any laws and trying to be open and transparent, despite the reaction they are getting from Canadian taxpayers that this is wrong, they do not care. They are plugging right along with continuing to host these things. It is an absolute affront to this House and to Canadian taxpayers, a slap in the face, saying they don't care what people think about the optics of these types of fundraisers, and they are going to go right ahead and do them anyway.

The finance minister talked quite a bit that this was going to be consultation, that this was a chance to speak to Canadians about the budget process, but the federal lobbying commissioner, Karen Shepherd, is now investigating these pay for access fundraisers; the Ethics Commissioner has called these fundraisers unsavoury; and even former Liberal minister Sheila Copps has asked the Prime Minister to ban these elite fundraisers, saying that during the Chrétien years, when she was minister, “You go and you get an envelope, ‘I need this, I want this, I want this’”.

It is quite clear that this has nothing to do with consultations. This is about what they can do for people and how much it is going to cost.

If he talked about consulting with Canadians, there are other ways to do it. We have a break week next week. I am going to be in my riding of Foothills. I have four round tables planned during that week, throughout the riding. I am going to be consulting with hundreds of Foothills residents about what they think is important as we go through the budget process, and certainly they are going to be focusing on Alberta jobs.

I am renting rooms at the Legion, at a local hotel, and at a local restaurant. Do members know how much I am charging people to attend? I am charging zero, absolutely zero. That is how consultation with Canadians should be done. It should not be done at $1,500 a head.

They are talking to the wealthy, the entitled, the elite. They are not talking to average hard-working Canadians, the ones they should really be paying attention to because those are the ones who really matter, with what is going on and the decisions that the Liberal government is making.

In conclusion, I am certainly hearing from my constituents, in disbelief, that this is utterly the kind of attitude of entitlement to their entitlements. It is the same old Liberal Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating. We have some of the strongest laws in the country in regard to this issue. In other jurisdictions, donations can be made from corporations and unions, and the sky is the limit. It is important for us to recognize that no laws have been broken and that the previous Conservative Harper government abided by the very same laws.

Would the member not acknowledge that the last time one of these laws was broken was when the Conservatives held power? When Stephen Harper was the prime minister was the last time one of these laws was broken. We even had members go to jail from the Conservative Party. Would he not, at the very least, acknowledge that what I just said is true? If it is not true, then maybe the member could tell me of a specific case where a law has been broken.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is trying to change the subject. Certainly we had one case with former minister Glover. The event was cancelled and the money was paid back immediately, which is much different from what we are getting from the government.

As I said in my speech, the Liberals have been caught doing these things, and whether or not it actually breaks the rules, the Liberals put the rules in place. The Prime Minister said to “avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest”. Those are his own words, yet the Liberals are doing it anyway, regardless of what Canadians think.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that these cash and pay for say events are not open to members of the general public, because as the member has noted, individuals would have to sign in on a website.

Second, many Canadians cannot afford the types of donations that are necessary. It is important to note that, because the exclusivity is very central to the event, and it eliminates many people who are not able to come up with that money.

Ironically, for Canadians who are watching this debate, why it matters to them is that, if they cannot afford that $1,500, people who do go to the Liberal fundraiser event will be subsidized by Canadians' money. At tax time, these executives and CEOs will actually get a cheque from the government, part of which is our money, to go to the event to get booze, food, treats, and party elements. They will get all of those things, and they will likely go in one of their executive cars or one of their different company cars, and they will write that off as a business-related expense.

These things are real and happening. If Canadians cannot afford them, it is sad, because they are also paying for them.

For the hon. member, I ask how that is fair to Canadians. When they do not have the money right now to do something like this, somebody else gets preferential treatment and gets exposure to that member, and everything has a price. That is why they are charging $1,500, not $5.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right; it is not fair. If individuals are not members of the Liberal Laurier club, which costs $1,500 a year, a very exclusive elite group, then they are not getting the access these other people are getting, which is not fair to Canadians.

As I said, the Liberals are paying attention to a very small percentage of very wealthy, very influential, very elite Canadians, but they are not paying any attention to the 99% of other Canadians who simply cannot afford these types of cash for access events.

This is not what government is supposed to be. We are elected to this House to be the voice of our constituents. We are not elected to this House to be the voice of the wealthy, the elite, and the influential. It is just not right.

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

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member said about corruption. My question is simple for the hon. member. This is how it starts, but where could it possibly go from here?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is where it starts. This is just where it picked up again from Chrétien, the ad scam, and those kinds of things. This is just the same old, same old. Certainly, this is what we found out now. Who knows what will happen in the future? That is why the government should be doing something about this now.

The Liberals talked about real change. This is not real change. This is the same old Liberal Party.