Debates of April 19th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising Activities

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague from across the floor did not apologize but inflamed the situation by making further comments about racism.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Let me consult with the table officer and I will get back to the member in approximately 30 seconds..

My initial thoughts were right. I am afraid that this is not a point of order; it is an issue of debate.

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion that is before the House. It is unfortunate that the member across the way, the Minister of Justice, took it upon herself to conduct herself and her affairs in such a way that there have been many questions asked.

There have been a great number of questions asked, and not just on this side of the House, I should note. The hon. member across the way spent some significant time suggesting that it was simply members in this caucus or on this side of the House who have been asking questions with respect to the conduct of the justice minister. However, before I get into the topic of the other folks who were asking these questions, I should note that I had the privilege of getting to know the Minister of Justice long before she entered partisan politics. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to work with the minister on a number of occasions and in a number of capacities.

I had the privilege of serving as the chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee. In that capacity, I met the now minister from time to time, and we often collaborated on projects. Therefore, it is with great regret that I stand in this House this afternoon to support this motion, but I remind the justice minister that she has had a proud and noble career up until this point. I believe that she is an honourable member. I will provide some suggestions as to how I think she might be able to reclaim the reputation she has spent her entire career helping to build.

There are many people who are proud of the minister for the accomplishments she has achieved in her life. She has certainly done great things, both in her private life, and obviously becoming the Minister of Justice of our country. There are many who have a great respect for her.

It is this conduct that she has engaged in in her role as a minister that has obviously sullied her name. It is not just me saying that. People across the country are asking questions about this member. It is important that the minister do everything in her power to rectify what many people believe is the incomprehensible conduct that she is alleged to have engaged in and what they know her character to be.

One person who has called for a review of this is none other than the former Liberal minister Ujjal Dosanjh. I do not think that anyone on the other side would suggest that Mr. Dosanjh is somehow a partisan Conservative or that he is writing the talking points on this side of the House.

However, just some time ago, on April 5, the former minister wrote the following. He stated:

[The Prime Minister] and the Liberal Party have defended the fundraiser as being within the four corners of the federal law and its reasonable donation limits. In the days when the influence of big private money is being debated everywhere - from the Panama Papers to the current US presidential campaign to Queens Park in Ontario -- it is totally incomprehensible to me how a Minister of our Federal Crown, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General at that, participating in a private fund raiser with lawyers can be said to escape either the reality or the appearance of a conflict of interest. If the current law allows our minister of justice to be placed in the improper position of at least the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, the law is wrong and must be changed.

If the law is wrong and the appearance of a conflict is real and persistent the minister should cancel the fundraiser even if the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party [believe] otherwise.

Therefore, it is not just partisan Conservatives who have questions with respect to the conduct that the Liberal minister has engaged in.

As a friend of the Minister of Justice, having worked with her long before she entered this partisan place, I do have some suggestions as to how the minister could conduct her affairs in such a way that she can recapture some of the respect that she had when she came to this place.

The first thing I would suggest is that she immediately release the names of the people who attended this secret fundraiser.

One might ask why I would suggest that this was a secret fundraiser. The reason I suggest it was intended to be secret is that on the Liberal Party of Canada's website, which lists a number of different fundraising opportunities, at no time was this particular fundraiser posted on that list. As a matter of fact, it was newspapers that broke the story that this fundraiser was going to be held at Torys LLP in Toronto.

The question of why the Liberal Party chose not to advertise this fundraiser has to be answered. Was it because the Liberals believed that this fundraiser would not pass the smell test? Did they believe that some might question the idea of the Minister of Justice going into a private law firm of friends of the Liberal Party when people were required to pay $500 to be there?

I should note that I probably could talk all day, but I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I know that she will have an even better speech.

I would suggest that if the Minister of Justice hopes to recapture some of the necessities of transparency, she would release immediately the names of those who were invited to pay $500 a person to be there.

The second thing the minister should do is make a commitment that she will rule out the appointment of any person who was at that fundraiser. She will commit today to ensure that no person who showed up at that fundraiser, or any future fundraiser, would be appointed by her to any federal position during her time as justice minister.

In addition to that, it would be appropriate for the minister to refund the money. There have been important questions asked about the justice minister engaging in this type of activity. The appropriate thing to do is return the money.

The cost to her reputation at this point has been great. Is it really worth the money to the Liberal Party to have brought about the diminishment of her reputation with the amount of money they collected from these highly paid Bay Street lawyers? I am certain that they will at some point make another donation to the Liberal Party, but it is important that the money be refunded just to clear the air.

Finally, I have a suggestion to the Minister of Justice if she wants to make a speech, as she has told the House, encouraging all people of all different backgrounds to involve themselves in politics and affirming that every person can make a difference.

I make similar speeches. I go to high schools. I do not charge them a cent to do it. There is something ironic and sad about a federal justice minister going to a room to talk about the inclusion of all people, all Canadians regardless of background, in federal politics, but charging them $500 at the door. The vast majority of people who are marginalized, the vast majority of people whose voices need to be heard in this place, the people who are under-represented today, do not have $500 to hear that speech.

I would call on the Minister of Justice to reflect on the reality that she has been caught in and recognize that her reputation and the work that she can yet do is only diminished by this activity, and that undertaking some of these steps might actually ensure that she has the ability to continue to make a difference in this place.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is ironic that my Conservative Party colleagues are using the precious time of the House to raise this kind of frivolous accusation, when their 10-year run in power was known as the dark decade, a period of secrets.

I would like the opposition member to respond to my constituents who are telling me they would like to hear about issues that affect them in the House. They want us to talk about economic development, jobs, and measures to ensure that they have enough income to make ends meet.

Does the opposition member have an answer for my constituents who tell me that, instead of wasting our time in the House on this kind of debate, we should be talking about solutions for their families who need help?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question but I am struggling with it. The hon. member talks about the necessity for transparency and suggests that this is what his party believes in, yet it is his party that stands in the House and refuses to disclose the names of the donors, the people who showed up at the secret fundraiser. This is a secret list of the secret fundraiser.

If the justice minister is going to continue to conduct herself in a way that people would believe is beyond reproach, it is an absolute necessity that this debate happen, that transparency prevail, and that Canadians know the facts with regard to the conduct of the justice minister.

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

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

The Conservatives certainly have no shortage of moxie, or at least they have a sense of humour. They are casting stones at the new Liberal government, when there were all kinds of scandals in recent years. There was Dean Del Mastro, the in and out scheme, the RCMP in the Conservative Party's offices, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, and I could go on.

I think that the Minister of Justice made a mistake by failing to comply with the guidelines set by the Liberal government. Beyond that, could we not simply ask her to reimburse the money she raised at this fundraising event in Toronto and move on to other issues that concern people, such as jobs, pensions, or the health care system?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is enough misconduct in every party that we might be able to throw stones, but Canadians expect transparency and expect to be repaid if taxpayers' dollars have been misused. Of course, the NDP is currently engaged in a debate in the courts with regard to whether or not they will repay funds that were clearly misappropriated.

I think the member across the way would agree that the minister across the way could clear the air by simply refunding the money, making a clear and transparent effort with Canadians to disclose who was there, and assuring them that she will never ever appoint those who showed up at these fundraisers for fear that it would look as though these people had engaged in payment for special access to the minister.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, off and on through the day, I have had the opportunity to sit and listen to the debate on this opposition motion introduced by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Earlier I heard a member from the government talking about raising the bar and taking pride in the government's transparency and the enhancement of its ethics. All of the government speeches and questions highlighted the conduct of the ministers while taking potshots at the opposition parties, trying to diminish the hot water situation the Liberals are currently in themselves.

However, let us be real here and have a real discussion. We are sitting in the House of Commons, all hiding behind the Lobbying Act and letters from the Ethics Commissioner. For a minute, let us pretend we are sitting at the kitchen table having coffee and cookies—or, for many people in my riding, it would be sitting at the Tim Hortons coffee shop.

What is that Canadians see and what is the appearance of ethics in this particular situation? Is the government truly trying to raise the bar? If it is trying to raise the bar, then let us have an open discussion, stop hiding behind the rules and regulations, and just look through the one lens we need, which is the appearance of conflict.

As many in this House know, I have asked the minister several questions specifically on this situation, at which time I have had no response from that minister. Each and every time, the House leader chooses to rise and answer for the minister.

I have heard several times that the minister has inquired of the Ethics Commissioner, but we all know in this House that was after the fundraiser had become public.

I have heard members of the government ask the opposition members to take this outside and at other times to speak to it publicly without hiding behind members' privilege within this House.

Earlier today my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, reminded the government that we have already done this by publishing the letters that he had written to the Ethics Commissioner.

I stand here today speaking about ethics, not trying to hide behind anything, speaking as a Canadian. Let us just be honest here and discuss this.

Let us start with the simple facts. The member was a guest speaker at a Toronto law firm. This particular law firm has legal dealings with the federal government. An attendee at the event decided to deregister as a lobbyist the evening before the event—something he had been for five years prior. The member attended the event and indicated that her speech focused upon the path for Canada. This event cost participants $500 a plate to attend.

Now, let us add the following to the situation. The member is the justice minister and Attorney General of Canada.

I am going to read, specifically, this. The Prime Minister has publicly and transparently provided Mandate Letters to all of his Ministers and has indicated to all members that

... political fundraising activities...do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.

These are just the facts, and I truly think at this point that I should sit down, because it is obviously clear that there has been a conflict of interest.

We can look at it through the telescope or the lens of “Did this appear?”. Did we see a justice minister at a law firm? If anyone asked that question, they would probably say, “Yes, it seems as though it does appear that way.” We are talking of the Canadian general public. Does this or does this not appear to be a conflict of interest?

The minister should apologize and pay back the money from this fundraiser. That is a nice and simple easy solution.

As any member in this chamber would have experienced, we are all members of Parliament and we must stand, be a pillar in our society, and lead by example, and I think every member does his or her best to do so. Even I, a speedy driver, make sure I set the speedometer now so that I do not speed. It sounds very simple, but we need to be the leaders. We need to set that bar for what Canadians are supposed to be. Just because we are members of Parliament, it does not mean that we have different privileges.

When I am sitting in a restaurant, nobody comes up to me to ask how I my meal is, but they want to know what is happening in Ottawa. They want to know what is going on up there. I believe every other parliamentarian has the exact same thing happen to them. It is not just in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Specifically, with this member, we are talking about the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada at a law firm. I think they have some common ground for discussions. Do we really think they talked about the Raptors game or when they were going to plant their spring gardens? These may be the common discussions at a sports bar or at a horticultural meeting, but we are talking about lawyers in the same room, with one common background, which is justice.

Does this fundraiser the Minister of Justice held at a law firm pass the sniff test?

In other words, we look at the pitcher of milk in the morning and it is curdled and it is lumpy. Then we proceed to smell it, assuming the milk has gone bad, even the date and the package shows that it has expired. If the Minister of Justice already thought it might be an issue with the Ethics Commissioner, why did she have to ask? Because it was obviously potentially a conflict of interest, going back to the appearance of an interest.

Let us go back to some questions. If the Minister of Justice needed to take this to the Ethics Commissioner, would it not appear that there had been a potential conflict of interest? The key question on all of this is, did the political fundraiser activities or considerations affect or appear to affect the exercise of the minister's official duties or the access of individuals or an organization to the minister?

This truly is a simple yes or no answer, but instead we find ourselves debating this on the floor today because the minister and the government refuse to live by their own ethical standards.

I will state, as many others have done from our caucus, that when the Hon. Shelly Glover found out a stakeholder under her portfolio was in attendance at a fundraiser, she took it to the Ethics Commissioner then paid the money back. It is that simple. There is a fix, an easy solution here.

As I indicated throughout this discussion, the government has repeatedly responded to all questions by pointing the finger back at any previous wrong doing, wrong doing in the previous government's case, that resulted in either the money being paid back or the member being removed from the caucus.

I already anticipate the questions coming from the government, asking me to articulate what our previous Conservative government did to rectify this issue. One of the first bills that we brought forward back in 2006 was the Federal Accountability Act. It removed the donations from big business and unions and the idea that an individual could buy a member's vote. Now Canadians can only spend money from their own pockets and pocketbooks to make those donations up to $1,525.

Earlier today, I was advised by Dr. Ted Hewitt, a long time person from the city of London, that I was a positive and forward focused individual. I hope the government today, during this debate, can adopt this type of personality, stop throwing mud at all the opposition parties and just do the right thing.

The Liberals should take the words of the Prime Minister when he campaigned on open and transparent government, let the light shine on this issue and take it for exactly what it is, instead of hiding behind the legal jargon and the code of ethics. They should rise above and do what their Prime Minister asks them to do: be honest to Canadians.

Earlier today when discussing this speech with my staff, Scott attributed this situation to the following. This ethic issue is like the difference between a circus and a zoo. Why do we pay so much to go to the fantastic circus performance and much less to go to a simple zoo? Plainly it is because we know that the animals at the circus can do incredible things. We know that those highly-trained animals can jump, leap and fly, which is much more entertaining than the sleepy lion at the zoo.

We also know these attendees went to the event with the minister because they recognized that she was one of those who could actually make difference in her high profile job. She is a powerful, high profile individual in the Government of Canada. Let us not forget that. We are acting like it is a simple thing.

Finally, the Minister of Justice should not accept the funds from those who have a vested interested in her incredibly important portfolio. Even if she was simply attending the fundraiser as an MP, something is clearly wrong and the appearance of a conflict of interest is definitely evident in this activity.

Many members on the other side have offered the financial statements, showing this fundraiser. I would ask that they come over here and show me why I cannot find it on my iPad. Yes, once in a while I just cannot find it, but I do not believe those records are yet available. If you can find it, please show me. We are telling Canadians that it is available, but I cannot find it. If I cannot find it, many Canadians cannot find it. I invite you to have coffee with me and you can show me where I can find it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid, as Speaker, I cannot not show you. I am sure you meant everyone else.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time believing the hon. member and her party are serious, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Justice has a ruling in writing from the Ethics Commissioner that no breach of ethics occurred, that no conflict of interest occurred and notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member represents a party that found was guilty on the in-and-out scandal. It was guilty on the robocalls scandal. It blatantly tried to suppress the vote through the conflict of unfair elections act. The former prime minister's former chief of staff gave $90,000 cheque to Mr. Duffy. As well, the parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister was led out in shackles and went to jail.

That party is guilty of everything I have mentioned. Therefore, do you actually believe Canadians feel you have any credibility whatsoever when you talk about ethical scandals?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Once again I want to remind members that they are speaking through the Speaker and not directly to each other. Otherwise this could turn into a real hodgepodge of things.

The hon. member for Elgin--Middlesex.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an easy question for me. I am 100% serious.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over what I just heard my Liberal friends say. I would remind them that they still owe Canadians $40 million.

That being said, I totally agree with my colleague. Does she believe there was a perceived conflict of interest on the part of the Minister of Justice? Should the minister reimburse Canadians?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe 100% that the justice minister should give that money back to the people who attended.

I will remind everybody in here that we were elected in the same way members on the opposite side were elected. I came here with the idea of working with others. I have been heckled today by the backbenchers on the opposite side. There is a gentleman who did not listen to my 10 minute speech. I sit here, I listen, and I almost laugh. The hypocrisy drives me crazy. If we are to sit here as parliamentarians and do things for Canadians, then we must live with what we say. Is the government going to be doing things sunny ways?

As the member of Parliament for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I wonder why we are seriously discussing this. It is because the Prime Minister promised Canadians transparency, the accountability, and the truth, and that promise is not being upheld.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it concerning that I am even rising in today's debate. The issues that have been raised recently remind me of the Shakespeare comedic play Much Ado About Nothing.

The point members opposite, including the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, are raising is the appearance of a conflict and I want to get specifically to that, which is the nature of my question.

If we are to apply the same standard that those members seek to apply to us, would the member also be willing to go back through 10 years of records when her party served in government, go through each of the records of the members of its executive council to see whether they had stakeholders attend their fundraisers when ministers attended as the guest speaker? Did they return the money to Canadians as well where there was that appearance?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all parliamentarians agree that we need to move forward in a more positive manner for Canada. We talk about what the NDP did and the $40 billion. We talk about the scandals.

Nobody in the House is perfect, but from this day forward, the new Government of Canada and members of Parliament should rise above this. Everybody wants to sit here and throw mud. How about we rise above that? If this is what the Prime Minister is asking us to do, all members of Parliament should rise above it and live up to those standards, including the ministers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, International Trade.

Bill C-10—Notice of time allocation motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting day a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion — Political Fundraising

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

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a notice of closure motion. That is timely because I was going to start my speech by saying that this is a fine debate that reminds us of the old saying, “Liberal, Tory, same old story”. That is what we have here.

Today's debate is on political fundraising issues, which often come up in the news and never for good reasons, unfortunately. We are in a situation where the Conservative Party opposition motion calls on the Minister of Justice to apologize and return the money.

She is being asked to follow the example of a Conservative Party minister, Shelly Glover, who, in a similar situation, returned all the money she collected. If we are setting the bar to meet a standard created by the Conservatives, then that bar is not very high and easy to jump over. I would hope that the Minister of Justice will be able to do so.

I want to talk about a number of points raised in this debate. First, with regard to political fundraising, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answer questions in question period by saying that every member participates in political fundraising, that there is nothing unusual about doing so, and that we should not worry about it. We are talking here about ministers, and their responsibilities and requirements differ from those of ordinary members.

I am not trying to minimize the responsibilities of individual members. However, there is a big difference between a minister responsible for justice sitting down with lawyers and me being given $20 by a woman in my riding because she thinks that I do a good job and she wants me to have the resources I need to get re-elected. It seems likely that, in the case of the minister, she and the lawyers will be talking almost exclusively about subjects related to her portfolio and her department. There is a very big difference there. That is where we get into the matter of appearances.

The code of conduct that the Prime Minister himself imposed on his ministers, for lack of a better way to say it, indicates that they cannot engage in partisan or fundraising activities that give the appearance of preferential access, the appearance of conflict of interest, or the impression that one can pay to obtain access to a minister. That is the problem. Perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me who is talking, but I would like to believe that the minister does not just lend an attentive ear to people who are prepared to pay to attend fundraisers. Once again, the problem is the way it is perceived. People see that and wonder whether someone has to be able to pay $500 or $600 to meet with the minister.

I almost forgot. Before I continue, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I was so outraged to hear the government House leader move a motion to invoke closure after only six months in office that I completely forgot. I hope I will be forgiven.

I will come back to the matter before us. We now find ourselves in a situation where Canadians have doubts and questions. There is already too much cynicism about politics and the political system. The problem is now being exacerbated by this type of fundraising, which gives the impression that one can pay to obtain preferential access. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

When going door-to-door during and even before the election campaign, we inevitably meet people who say they could not care less about politics. I dare say this is the experience of all MPs from all parties. When you ask these people to explain why they feel that way and you try to talk about the files you are working on, the good work that MPs can do, the difference one can make as an MP, and the difference one can make in the community, quite often they will say that politicians are all dishonest and that only people with power and money have access to elected officials. It seems that the average person cannot get this type of access, nor make a difference and communicate with an elected official, an MP or even a minister, as in the situation we find ourselves in today.

This is what happens in situations like this. Although I make no assumptions about what the minister will do and what access she will provide, she has nevertheless created the impression that she will give her attention and her time more readily to those who are prepared to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is unacceptable and it creates a problem for all of us. It is a big black cloud that will settle over Parliament and the political system, and it will follow us everywhere.

I am not a member of the Liberal Party, but when I knock on doors in my riding, citizens inevitably talk to me about this situation or that situation. I reply that it is the good old Liberal Party that we all know, and I personally promise to do politics differently. However, that does not change anything, because people say that it does not matter, since politicians are all alike. As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to do better, and ministers have 10 times as much responsibility. After all, they are not just representatives of their constituencies, because they also represent institutions. Ministerial responsibility is even greater for the Minister of Justice.

What is happening is, unfortunately, the current trend. That is not limited to the Minister of Justice. We are dealing with another case involving privileged access; just consider the case of the Minister of National Revenue. We are right in the middle of income tax season. Some people are quite happy, because they will be getting a tax refund. Others will have to write a cheque to the government. It is a happy or unhappy time of year, depending on whom you ask. Ultimately, it does not matter how those people feel; they pay their fair share, with the exception, of course, of the millionaires and the people who do business with KPMG, because they can have nice agreements with the government and benefit from tax evasion. That would not be a problem if we had not learned this week that there are cocktail buffets for senior public servants and managers who oversee investigations to combat tax evasion. Here we are again in a situation that feeds public cynicism. We are creating the perception that preferential access is possible.

The Minister of National Revenue, much like the leader of the government when he was defending the Minister of Justice, stood in the House and said that the people who work in the department are members of the same professional association as the people facilitating tax evasion. Therefore this was not about tax evasion; it was an opportunity to attend an event with fellow accountants.

The problem is still one of perception. Who knows what happens at those meetings? Who knows what is discussed? Essentially, the members of the public who pay their fair share of taxes think that we have enough money to attend a little cocktail party or pay the big fee of an accountant at KPMG, which has a nice network that includes a manager or maybe even an elected representative. We hope not, but this type of situation creates a very problematic perception, because it undermines people’s confidence in their public institutions and their elected representatives. It is a completely unacceptable situation.

In the end, this is why we will support the Conservative Party’s motion.

In conclusion, I would like to say that although we support the motion, I would hope that we will find more urgent situations to discuss. Yes, what happened is scandalous and appalling on the part of a minister. However, when I think about the people who are losing their jobs, the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, and the hypocrisy of the Liberals on this issue, and when I think of the people who do not have access to employment insurance, despite the government’s lovely words about changing the system, and of the issue of tax evasion, I firmly believe that despite the ethical problems that are eating away at both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, which have succeeded one another in power, when all is said and done, there are real people who need us to stand up in the House. People need us to hold debates on the issues that affect them personally. That is what we should be doing. We will support the motion, but we have to get back to real business and tackle those issues. It is very important to do so.

I would like to tell everyone listening not to throw up their hands at such behaviour. They must not let cynicism control their relationship with politics. If they consider it a deplorable act, that is one more reason for them to get involved in changing the attitudes of elected representatives.

In 2019, a government that does not keep its promises of transparency and openness, not to mention all the other broken promises, may well be replaced. That is what we are hoping and aiming for.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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

I am asking myself this question: Are our friends on the other side of the House burying their heads in the sand? They are playing with words. It is all very well for them to attack the minister, but I am really surprised to hear a colleague say that they do not know what happened, that they do not know whom the minister spoke to, and that they do not know what the people who were with her did or whom they spoke to. That does not make sense. Do they even have to know whether the minister is talking to her husband? If they have the courage to tell the truth, if they think it is true, do they have the courage to say that the minister committed an illegal act, in the House and outside the House? Did the minister take part in an illegal activity? Let them say so in the House and outside the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the conversations with her husband and given the circumstances, I think we need better answers about this situation.

I hope my colleague listened carefully to my speech. I even said that I did not question the minister’s integrity regarding her ability to listen to people. The fact remains that even if it is not illegal, we can certainly wonder whether it is ethical. That is the distinction that must be made.

The situation is as follows: People are giving the Liberal Party of Canada $500 or $600, whatever the amount is, which gives them the impression that they have preferential access to a minister, when the code that the Prime Minister himself gave his ministers prohibits precisely that kind of situation.

I will not say outside that this is illegal, because it is not. However, it is certainly unethical, and it is certainly a breach of the promises that were made over and over by this party during the election campaign on the subject of openness and transparency.

You can put “openness” and “transparency” in quotation marks, because that has not materialized, far from it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Montreal's south shore, whose statements are always factual and well documented. I enjoy his prose very much.

Like him, I think that it is quite normal to have this kind of debate, like many other debates we have here in the House on job creation, wealth creation, promises not kept, and the assistance we must provide or the support we must give to small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy.

Like him, I have concerns about the management of public finances and ethical issues, not to mention that his party is currently in court on a matter concerning satellite offices, where 2.7 million taxpayers’ dollars are at stake; we will let the court decide.

Here is the question I want to ask the member. He rightly noted that beyond the facts, there are also appearances, and in this case, I would like to hear what he has to say about the fact that the minister in question is the Minister of Justice.

In the member’s opinion, when a person is the justice minister, should that person have an even stricter code of ethics concerning political party fundraising than any other member of the House?

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

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

I will not waste too much time recalling the bogus process that led to the partisan accusations against NDP members. I will remind my colleague of the Conservative majority on the Board of Internal Economy at the time. However, as I said, that is a debate for another day. Today, it is about the problems that ministers face.

It is about a code that the Prime Minister himself established for the ministers. With regard to the question my colleague raised, the fact remains that ministers, including the Minister of Justice, have more responsibilities than an ordinary member, if I can use that term, because ultimately, they represent not only their constituents but also a government department and institutions.

That is especially true for the Minister of Justice, and that is what makes this situation even more problematic.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to set the context, and I doubt I am the first to read them into the record today, but I think it is worth quoting the ethics principles that the ministers were given:

There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.

I share the view expressed by many members here today on both sides of the House that these are not the kinds of things I came here to talk about. There are a lot more important issues that we should be addressing.

However, that cannot be used as an excuse. I would say that is an argument for ministers not to engage in this kind of activity, so we do not have to spend time talking about it. However, as long as there is going to be that kind of activity, we have to talk about it.

It is not opposition members who should be blamed for having brought this issue forward. If the government earnestly wants to spend our time talking about the other issues, and I would agree with the government that we should be talking about an expansion of the Canada pension plan, instituting a national pharmacare program, and rolling out child care across the country, that is what I would like to be talking about. However, as long as the government is going to engage in the kinds of activities that brought about this debate, then we are not going to be able to do that.

These things have to be addressed and not cynically used as a smokescreen to try to get the government out of trouble when its ministers are behaving in ways that are obviously inappropriate. They are not illegal. We are not here to say that this is an illegal activity, but they are inappropriate activities and we do hold ministers in this country to a higher code of conduct. That makes sense. That is what Canadians expect. It is certainly what I expect.

We have seen this with other governments; we saw it under the previous government, and we saw it under governments previous to that government, this tendency to insist on the narrow, legal definitions of conduct for ministers and not accept that there is a higher code of conduct and that ministers not only have to be following the law, and not only following principles of ethics, but they have to be seen to be following those principles, or there is a problem.

Traditionally, ministers would step aside if there was a problem while it was investigated. Those ministers would come back later if they were cleared, and not if they were not.

This tendency, which I find quite unfortunate, to bear down and say that if it cannot be proven in a court of law, then too bad, they are going to carry on as if it does not matter, is not acceptable. It flies in the face of the code of conduct that the Prime Minister himself brought in.

It was not eons ago, 100 or 150 years ago, that some former prime minister brought this in. This is something that the new Prime Minister himself, just months ago, brought in. He said it was important that his ministers be held to this higher standard. It is not something that the opposition is suddenly making up. It is not something that the Prime Minister just brought in willy-nilly either. We hear it every day, ad nauseam, frankly, when ministers get up to talk about transparency, openness, accountability, and how they are setting a new bar.

What has happened here, a private fundraiser for lawyers to meet the justice minister and to advertise access to the justice minister, is not anywhere near consistent with setting a new bar. It is pretty low, and people have a right to be concerned. They have a right to be concerned not just because this is selling access to a minister of the crown, but also because it is doing that within her area of responsibility, which is quite significant. This is a person who appoints judges for Canada.

It is a fundraiser of potential candidates, or we do not know exactly but certainly people who practise law are potential candidates for appointment to the bench. They bought a $500 ticket to an event to meet the person who could be the gateway to the next promotion in their career. One does not have to be a lawyer or a professor of ethics to understand what is wrong with that. I do not think one does.

I was sympathetic early on. There were accusations levelled pretty early on about the justice minister. Another member alluded to that earlier, having to do with her husband. Privately, I kind of felt that one cannot put one's spouse in a blind trust. I understood that and there had not been any evidence that she was going to demonstrate poor judgment, so let us wait and see.

We did not have to wait very long to show that this minister is capable of great lapses in ethical judgment, because this is not defensible. Then she tried to say it was not really in her capacity as minister that they wanted to meet with her, that a whole bunch of high-priced lawyers in Toronto just wanted to meet with her because she is an MP from Vancouver. Come on.

I appreciate that government members want to defer to the ethical lapses of the previous government. There is a lot of material to mine there. I can appreciate that the Liberals want to bring those things up. They want to bring them up because, in part, it was those arguments and actions by the previous government that created the impetus for change. It is a double-edged sword for the Liberals to remind Canadians of just how angry they were with the ethical lapses of the previous government when their Minister of Justice is involved in the very kinds of activity that we are here to talk about today.

Part of the issue is about trust. When we hear the kind of defence that the Minister of Justice is putting forward about her actions and it does not pass the smell test, that hurts trust in government. It speaks to questions of openness and transparency.

Just before the member previous got up to speak, the government came into the House. Again, if the Liberals want to distinguish themselves from the previous government, what should they do? There is a serious debate before the House about the jobs of Canadian aerospace workers, and we just witnessed the government House leader come into this House and serve notice of a motion to invoke closure. Of all the cynical and worst tools of a majority government to ram its agenda through, closure is the worst. The previous government took that tool and reformed it, and brought it to new heights, I would say.

Again, consistent with this criticism of the previous government, we were told we were going to have a new government. It was going to take the role of Parliament differently. It was going to treat Parliament differently. The ministers were going to be held to a higher ethical standard. We see this on the legislative end. They hardly have a bill before Parliament. They have had several routine bills on the estimates. They have two bills that are mandated by the Supreme Court with a deadline before summer. They have a few bills that will simply repeal some acts of the previous government.

They hardly have a bill of their own that they wrote themselves. We have had two days of debate on that bill, and they are already invoking closure. It is unconscionable, when we have such a sparse legislative agenda, that they would be using closure. Then they want to say to just trust them on the other stuff and not talk about their conduct outside of the House, that it is a trustworthy government. However, when we want to have a discussion—or not, as closure would seem to imply—about the 2,600 families, with members who are working for Air Canada, the Liberals are going to shut that down. That is what the Liberals are doing, and that is what we are seeing from the government today.

The Liberals want to show us that they are to be trusted and that we do not have to have these kinds of debates to hold them to account. However, I submit that as time goes on, their methods are beginning to look a lot like those of the previous government. Where the previous government, to its small credit, had a similar fundraising scandal with a member of Parliament from my hometown, the former MP for Saint Boniface, she at least paid the money back.

I heard the arguments of members across the way on the government side in terms of their disappointment in the ethical conduct of the previous government. However, I would say that the more they make those arguments, the more it raises the question: Why would they not at least do what they did, at the very least? Never mind holding themselves to a higher ethical bar. At the very least, they could hold themselves to the same bar. We are not seeing that. Already the current government is beginning to adopt some of the habits of the previous government, and I find that quite unfortunate.