Debates of April 19th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising Activities

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would care to comment on a fundraising controversy that arose in the previous Parliament when the former minister of transport, who had been using a government agency to fax fundraising letters prior to being elected to the House, was caught using public assets to fundraise as a member of a federal port authority.

Subsequent to that, people who were appointed to that port authority by Governor in Council appointees who had been appointed by the previous government were then donating their salaries back to the political party that appointed them. That behaviour was dismissed as simply a Twitter battle and not anything of any significance. It is questionable whether that scandal was properly handled by the previous government and whether the ethical standards of that party should have any standing in the House to raise an issue like the one we have today when they could not follow those rules either.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister identified yet another example that we think deeply disturbed Canadians. That circumstance involved the former minister of transport, who in a previous capacity was involved in a governmental organization. People were appointed to various government agencies, and we do not know if in fact there was an understanding that when people got appointed to a particular board, agency, or commission, they would of course make a contribution back to the Conservative Party.

A perfect example of the reason Canadians became so distrustful of the previous government was just outlined by my colleague. What we did with the open and accountable government mandate was to say that Canadians deserve to trust their government. We have a government that trusts Canadians and we think it is important for Canadians to be able to trust their government, and the only way that we can rebuild trust after 10 difficult years under the previous government is to be more open and more transparent, as the Minister of Justice has been in seeking the advice and guidance of the appropriate authorities before undertaking a particular course of action.

That is what ministers are doing, and that is exactly how we will erase the sad memory of the scandals in the previous Conservative government that were outlined by my colleague and bring Canadians to a better place in terms of confidence in public institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to change the tenor of the debate, because this really is about ensuring the credibility of the House and of government and ensuring the trust of Canadians, the trust he is talking about.

The document that is outlined in the motion today is the “Open and Accountable Government” document that was so frivolously penned by his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada. I use the word “frivolous” just as they are referring to the debate today as frivolous.

I am wondering if he would agree with these statements.

—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 fundraiser with lawyers can be said to escape either the reality or the appearance of a conflict of interest. ...

An attorney general is not just any minister. She is the Attorney General of Canada, and in a significant number of her functions she must remain and be seen to remain independent of the office of the prime minister.

This article was penned by none other than Ujjal Dosanjh, a former Liberal cabinet minister and a former premier of British Columbia, who suggested in the article at the time of its writing that the minister cancel that fundraiser.

I am wondering why the government House leader cannot agree with someone from a former Liberal government who obviously understood that scandals do not do them any good.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe would certainly know that scandals do not do any government any good, if we look at the record of his government.

The previous minister of justice in my friend's party, when it was in government, attended fundraising events. This is not something that is unusual. There is this fake indignation: “Oh my God, some cabinet minister attended a fundraiser.” The fundraiser followed all the rules. It was designed to raise money for a political party, exactly as all parties in the House have done, according to law. We hope that has been the case. Certainly it has been in our case.

We see absolutely nothing inappropriate with the actions of the Minister of Justice. What we are concerned about is the case of my colleague from Red Deer and the event he organized in his riding with now-disgraced Senator Mike Duffy, where Senator Duffy apparently used taxpayers' money to attend a fundraiser in his constituency. Then public attention was drawn to this example of Senator Duffy, who Canadians know is facing 31 charges, including fraud of $5,000. We would not have thought he was the best guest to attend a constituency fundraising event, but my friend from Red Deer obviously did, because he invited Senator Duffy to his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe.

We are here today to talk about the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. I want to pay respect to my colleague, because, first, he is a brand new member, elected only six months ago. It was six months ago that the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and all of us were elected, but it was the first time for him and for me.

I want to pay my respect because in the debate on assisted suicide, he did a tremendous job that benefited the country. He was the leader of our group in the committee and the lead on the dissenting report we wrote with our colleagues. He did a tremendous job, and I want to pay respect to him today and thank him on behalf of Canada and the future of our country, especially for his thoughts on this delicate issue.

I would now like to speak to the motion moved today. This is all about ethics. I appreciated the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, even though I do not at all agree with his point of view. He believes that there is nothing there, there is no problem, everything is fine, and this is all about nothing.

Let us look at the facts, and Canadians can then judge for themselves. On April 7, the Minister of Justice attended a $500-a-ticket fundraiser for the Liberal Party at a law firm. The ticket gave direct, privileged access to the Minister of Justice. That is the reality.

When we asked questions in the House about this activity, the minister never really answered them. Of course, she has the right not to answer questions. When someone rises, the whole government answers. However, if I were personally attacked in that way, I would rise every time. Unfortunately, I cannot say that she really helped her cause every time she rose to speak.

Let us remember that we asked questions about ethics, about how she should repay the money, about how she was there in her capacity as the Minister of Justice, and about how she was at a law firm, where there were many people who may want to become a minister or judge one day. What did she answer? She said that she was there in her capacity as an MP and that they spoke about Canada. What kind of argument is that? In her opinion, there was nothing wrong with what she did because she was talking about Canada. A justice minister should show some decorum. I understand that these sorts of comments may sometimes be made with tongue in cheek. However, when a person is accused of unethical behaviour and all she has to say for herself is that she attended the event as an MP and that she spoke only about Canada, it shows that that person does not have a clear conscience.

Everyone is entitled to their mistakes, and the minister made one. Something similar even happened to us a few years ago when we were in office. What did we do? We gave back the money. Everyone makes mistakes. We need to have the honour and dignity to recognize them and take the appropriate action. The incident we are discussing today goes against the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Justice.

We would like to commend the government for making the mandate letters public. That was a good thing. The opposition members do not always say that the government is bad. On the contrary, when the government does good things, we are happy to point them out.

What did the mandate letter to the Minister of Justice say? It is interesting. I would like to quote the Prime Minister. He said:

We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government.

Were it not for the CBC report, we would not have known about this incident.

It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them. Canadians do not expect us to be perfect--they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

That is what we are talking about, here. In this case, when a justice minister makes people pay $500 to be able to enter a law firm for a fundraising event, this does not serve the public interest. Ministers must act with dignity, honour, and courage. When someone makes this kind of mistake, they should acknowledge it, as set out in the mandate letter written by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice did not adhere to what was in the letter.

What does the mandate letter say?

As noted in the Guidelines, you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny.

I find that amusing, since this is the very situation we are discussing today. For two weeks, the government has been going on and on about how this situation was not serious, that there was nothing there, and that we were wasting our time talking about it. I am sorry, but these are issues connected to public administration, especially since donations to political parties are eligible for tax credits. When someone donates to a political party, which is a good thing, especially if it is the Conservative Party, and something I encourage everyone to do, they are entitled to a tax credit. This means that we are talking about public money, not private money. We have to realize that.

I encourage the government to reconsider. I also encourage the minister to acknowledge that she made a mistake and to act with the dignity her position demands. The Conservatives are not the only ones saying this. Our friends in the NDP feel the same way.

I want to share something written by the hon. Ujjal Dosanjh, a former health minister in Jean Chrétien's cabinet and former premier of British Columbia. He recently wrote the following in the Vancouver Sun:

...I happily remain a Laurier Club member of the Liberal Party....

I just wanted to give some background on this individual, so there is absolutely no doubt that he is still a Liberal.

He said:

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 fundraising with lawyers can be said to be escape either the reality or the appearance of a conflict of interest. ...

An attorney general is not just any minister. She is the Attorney General of Canada, and in a significant number of her functions she must remain and be seen to remain independent of the office of the prime minister.

A former Liberal premier said that. This deserves some serious consideration. I have never had the pleasure or honour of meeting that man, but in my previous role in the provincial government, as the National Assembly member for Chauveau, and as a journalist, I had the opportunity to have discussions with many justice ministers. Two of them stand out in my memory: the Honourable Paul Bégin and the Honourable Bertrand St-Arnaud. Mr. St-Arnaud was actually just appointed as a judge, and I wish to congratulate him.

I had a number of very interesting conversations with Mr. Bégin and Mr. St-Arnaud about the ethics of the justice department. Every time I spoke with them, I would ask them if I could talk to them about something. They would say yes, but then as soon as I began asking them about this judge or that judge, they would stop me right away, because as the justice minister, they had to be careful.

These are men of honour and dignity. Those justice ministers did not attend fundraising events in the private offices of law firms at a cost of $500 per person. They are men of integrity who were careful in their duties. The minister responsible for justice in Canada should always act with intention.

Should we be surprised by these ethical breaches? Unfortunately, the higher-ups set the example. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is morally acceptable. The Minister of Finance had been running a family business since the 1990s, a business that specialized in tax optimization services, among other things, and whose tentacles reached as far as the Caribbean and the Bahamas. It was quite legal, but is it befitting a minister of finance? I am not so sure.

Recently, we also found out that the Prime Minister of Canada had four numbered companies so that he could pay less tax. Is that legal? Sure. Is it befitting a sitting prime minister? Not at all. When that same Prime Minister was the leader of the second opposition party, he paid his taxes in Ontario to save $6,000, but he represented Quebeckers. Is that legal? Sure. Is it ethical? Not at all. That is exactly what we are talking about here.

When those at the top, such as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, set the example, it is not surprising that the Minister of Justice should fail to act with the honour and dignity befitting her rank. It is very clear that the Minister of Justice did the wrong thing, so she should act with the honour and dignity befitting her rank by apologizing and giving the money back.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Justice took it upon herself to go see the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who confirmed that the minister followed the rules.

If the member does not trust the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who does he trust?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my government colleague's question.

As I have said about 20 times, just because it is legal does not make it ethical. I would once again like to quote the former minister of health, who said exactly the same thing:

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 think otherwise.

This is also about the image and the integrity that should be associated with the position of Minister of Justice. To us, the Minister of Justice is not like any other minister. This minister is responsible for the law, appoints judges and, as the Attorney General, defends all vulnerable Canadians. This minister must be beyond reproach and must meet a higher ethical standard than any member of the executive branch of the Canadian government.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate what the hon. member was saying about the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Last week I was at an event sponsored by VIA Rail, and the Ethics Commissioner was sitting with the Minister of Democratic Institutions and a bunch of parliamentary secretaries from the other side of the House. It did not look good.

In this case with the Minister of Justice, I am concerned with how Canadians can even know in the future when she appoints judges and people to positions of authority, if they cannot see the list of who was there, who had preferential access or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the main issue of this motion. We are talking about demonstration of justice, and we totally expect members of the government to respect that. When we talk about justice, we are not talking about fisheries. We are not talking about roads. We are not talking about refugees. We are talking about justice, and justice belongs to people who are far away from any partisanship. We like to be partisan, especially me; I like to have a good political fight. I will never be a justice minister because I am not a lawyer, but when we are talking about justice we are talking about everything except partisanship.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton assuming the role of conflict of interest and ethics commissioner in the House. It is unfortunate that we are spending valuable House time on this issue. It is also ironic to hear that this criticism is coming from across the aisle. As has been stated in the House many times, the Ethics Commissioner has reviewed the case and concluded that no impropriety has been found.

Is the hon. member appealing the Ethics Commissioner's ruling, and is this the right time and place to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the question that I had a few minutes ago. The point is that if it is not so important, why did the Minister of Justice, when she received questions here in the House of Commons, not rise and defend herself? It is always the great leader of the government who rises every time. I appreciate him, but I would prefer to listen to the Minister of Justice explain herself as to why she did that.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. A few moments ago I said “lawyer”, not “liar”.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be hard to follow that, but I will do my best to make sure I say “lawyer” when it is appropriate and the other word when it is appropriate, but I cannot say that word in here.

This debate today provides us with a great opportunity to reflect and take stock as Canadians watch the debate. When Canadians elect people and send them to Ottawa they want them to behave in a way that shows our country both domestically and around the world in the brightest light and in the highest standard possible.

That brings me to what the motion is all about. The government party and members on the other side who are taking us to task for presenting the motion today are using words like “frivolous”. They are making comments like “this is a waste of time”. We are debating a rather substantive document, a document called “Open and Accountable Government”. It is written on the letterhead of the Prime Minister of Canada and it bears his signature. This is the standard to which this debate should be held. Members of the Liberal caucus who are rising are hiding behind a technical ruling from the Ethic Commissioner's office. I want to be very clear for people watching this debate at home how this works.

Currently, we have the Conflict of Interest Act and the code of conduct for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and members of Parliament. This is administered by Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. She has come before the ethics committee many times. I chair that committee and I have been on that committee in previous Parliaments. We are reviewing the legislation, which has not been updated since the 1980s when it was first introduced. That is how archaic the legislation actually is. Every previous government owns the responsibility for not updating the legislation. I am not here to debate that with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I would agree that the time has come.

I remain cautiously hopeful and optimistic that the new bar that will be set in law will actually meet the supposed tests that the Prime Minister expects his cabinet ministers to meet. Here is the reality.

The witnesses who come to committee recommended by the Liberal Party, the NDP, and the Library of Parliament, virtually all are unanimous in saying that the Conflict of Interest Code and the Conflict of Interest Act which creates the code do not stand up in today's society. That bar is here. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the access to information commissioner, and the Commissioner of Lobbying, have lobbied many times to raise the bar on all of these things. The bar to which they say that the legislation should be changed is here.

The document that the Prime Minister has penned, which has been quoted from several times today, and I will quote it again, says:

Ministerial Conduct

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must act with honesty and must uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced.

It goes on:

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

The law has a standard that is down here according to almost anybody that comes before the committee. That is not a high bar to achieve, and it is not a bar that I would hide behind if I were on the other side of the House today trying to defend.

This document, “Open and Accountable Government”, holds a lot of hope and optimism, but we have to remember who penned this document. This document is supposedly penned by the Prime Minister. My guess is that it was penned by somebody else who might have worked at Queen's Park, where they currently have quotas for ministers to achieve, fundraising targets, and was simply signed by the Prime Minister. Nonetheless, even if the Prime Minister did not pen it, he signed the document, so he is responsible for it.

Let us take a look at that particular individual's conduct. After becoming an MP, we know that the current Prime Minister accepted numerous paid speaking engagements while he was a member of Parliament, and for that he was admonished, not necessarily technically by the Ethics Commissioner, but certainly anybody with any credibility in the media or in civil society would look at that and say, “You are a member of Parliament. You have been invited to a speaking engagement and you are charging a fee?”

In one particular case, the current Prime Minister, in his capacity as a member of Parliament, actually billed a school board $780 for a limousine service to take him from Ottawa to Kingston and return him to Montreal. That is when he appeared at the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board, in Kingston, where he was paid $15,000 to be a speaker. That was in 2010. He was a member of this House. He probably had designs on being the prime minister at some point in time. My guess would be that one would have to do that at some particular point in time.

George Takach said, “MPs shouldn't get paid extra for public speaking, it's part of their job description”.

I certainly would not even dream of accepting payment in my capacity as a member of Parliament, which I have had the privilege of being for the last 10 years in this House.

Others go on to say, “I certainly wouldn't be, as a member of Parliament, receiving money for speaking out on matters of public interest”. This is something that we already get paid quite well to do.

We have to ask ourselves whether the Prime Minister actually believes the document he has penned or whether it is “do as I say, not as I do”. This raises a lot of questions.

He has charged $20,000 to the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario. Would the certified management accountants have anything to lobby the government about at some particular point in time?

He has also taken speaking fees from the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. We all know about Bill C-4. The ink was not even dry on the swearing in of the ministers, then there is pro-union legislation on the table in the House of Commons. We have to wonder just exactly where the Prime Minister is at on this.

Notwithstanding the credibility of the author of the document, I still have high hopes, as chair of the ethics committee, that we can actually elevate the legislation we have here.

Then we come to the justice minister and the conflict of interest that is abundantly clear to everybody in the world except the Liberal caucus.

The government House leader just stood in this House and tried to rationalize her appearance, because he is able to get $700-a-plate fundraisers in his own riding, 20 minutes from his house, where everybody knows him. He is happy with $750. That is enough to have access. Then he asks us to equate that with an MP from Vancouver, who is unknown to most people in the greater Toronto area, charging $500 a plate for an invitation-only, not even advertized, event. That just does not pass muster. It does not make any sense at all.

We can compare that with some of the decisions, and I was hopeful before Christmas. My birthday is at Christmas, so I was feeling good—

[An hon. member]

That is like the Prime Minister.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I share a birthday with the Prime Minister. That is about all I share with the Prime Minister.

Prior to Christmas, the current finance minister was actually going to attend a fundraising event. On the Liberal website, it encouraged people to make a $250 donation for a chance to have dinner with the finance minister. I did not sign up. However, at least when the story broke that the fundraiser was going to happen, the finance minister, who had no idea who was even going to be there, had the good sense to cancel the event. Ethical watchdogs around Canada should have jumped for joy and seized the opportunity. Little did they know that it was the last opportunity they were ever going to get to cheer for an ethical decision made by the folks across the way.

Compare and contrast that now with the justice minister who stepped out of her role as chair of the First Nations Finance Authority only to have her husband and business partner step in as a lobbyist for the same group—a group that, by the way, lobbies the Minister Minister of Justice for funding—and then we find out, in the budget, that $20 million has been kicked back to that organization. Apparently, that passes that bar. She attended the $500-a-plate private fundraiser anyway at Torys LLP in Toronto. She has made no bones about it. She has no interest in paying the money back. The optics of it do not appeal to anyone I know of. It does not make any sense. That leads us to today.

The question that is before the House in the motion is this. Will the government actually live up to the document signed by the Prime Minister and raise the ethical bar, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member believes the rules should be changed, why does he believe the ethically challenged government that recently left office did nothing substantial to change those rules? Why is his party putting forward a frivolous motion that does not make a substantial change now, rather than making solid and concrete proposals?

Is it because the member is afraid that clearer rules would require us to, say, require the preceding leader of his party to reveal who bankrolled his leadership campaigns to the tune of $2 million, or is it just that more Conservatives will wind up in leg irons? Maybe it is just because the member knows that nothing wrong actually took place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if he asks his former colleague or friend Joe Fontana all about this, he will have the answer he is looking for.

We can cast aspersions here all day long. If legislation is going to come forward that actually meets the test that is laid out in the “Open and Accountable Government” document that the Prime Minister signed, I will gladly, in my capacity as chair of the ethics committee, shepherd that legislation through post-haste to make sure that the bar in the legislation and the code can be raised to a much higher standard than it is right now.

Instead, we have other issues being brought forward by the Liberal government that have absolutely nothing to do with raising that bar. It is very unfortunate. In fact, it looks as if everybody who did anything favourably, whether they had union workers show up at campaigns or any well-connected Liberals connected to various other parts of the Canadian economy, seem to be the target of what is available in the budget; and so far it is the history book on the shelf repeating itself all over again.

If I were Justice Gomery, I would make sure I publish my number, because it looks as if we are going to need him again.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the principles in the justice system is that justice must be done and must appear to be done, and yet here we have a bunch of lawyers getting together and paying $500 to talk to the justice minister. Is it possible that some of those lawyers are looking for appointments? They are not supposed to lobby a justice minister or a member of government to become judges, but in my opinion—and I would like to hear the member's comments on this—it puts the whole justice system into disrepute, by saying to lawyers that they just need to pay $500 and they will get access to the justice minister and she will be told how wonderful they are and possibly what a great judge they would make.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for his question. He is a very knowledgeable member in the House. He knows exactly what he is talking about, and I know exactly what he is getting at.

The reality is that there was somebody from Torys who deregistered as a lobbyist the day before that $500-a-plate fundraiser so that the $500 pay-to-play access to the justice minister would not actually have to be recorded in the federal lobbyist register. These are ways that well-connected Liberals can continue to hide what they are actually doing, from Canadians.

As I say, this is how this is going down. This is a government that is actually asking for forgiveness, not asking for permission. We know that the story broke on CBC on April 5, I believe it was, that this fundraiser was going on. On April 7, the Ethics Commissioner's office said that it received a request the previous day, which was April 6.

Therefore, the timeline clearly indicates that the Liberal Party had no intention of ever even asking the Ethics Commissioner whether this private dinner with Torys LLP was going to meet an ethical bar or not. It simply asked the Ethics Commissioner once the story broke and it was scrambling, looking for cover.

That is all Liberals are trying to do. They are hiding behind a very low bar right now, when they should be trying to raise the standard according to the Prime Minister's document, one that they say is frivolous to debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I must inform the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia that he has a little less than 10 minutes remaining for his speech.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

When I wrote my speech, I said that I was pleased to rise in the House to debate this motion; however, in reality, that is not the case. The Conservatives were in power for 10 years, a period known as the dark decade, a period of secrets, and today they are moving this motion.

The people in my riding want us to discuss real issues, like infrastructure, in the House. They want additional income so they can make ends meet, and they want the federal government to provide the services they need to do what they have to do.

Those are the kinds of issues we want to debate. Unfortunately, we have to discuss a motion that, in my opinion, is quite frivolous. However, that is part of the process in the House, and we will have to discuss it.

When we were elected, we committed to a new kind of leadership and tone in the federal government, to honour the trust that Canadians put in us. We are very serious about and committed to giving Canadians an open and accountable government.

We stand by the fundamental democratic principles, and we will strengthen our democratic institutions. As my hon. colleagues have explained, our government endorsed the notion that an open and transparent government is a good government. The code of conduct for exempt staff is just one of many measures taken by our government, an open and transparent government.

Our agenda strengthens the guidelines for the non-partisan use of departmental communications resources. We must carefully ensure that these resources are used for official Government of Canada communications and not for partisan purposes. This means that no partisan symbols or content should be used in departmental communications, events, or social media.

An open and accountable government innovates by giving ministers and parliamentary secretaries guidelines on the use of social media.

I believe that every member of the House realizes that social media can be an effective means of communicating with Canadians and that it is important to know how to use them. For ministers and parliamentary secretaries, this means knowing how to use social media and, in particular, drawing a line between the official Government of Canada accounts and their own personal accounts. This ensures that members of the public are able to differentiate between the two types of communication and can continue to expect non-partisan messages from the Government of Canada. That is what is required under Treasury Board policy.

An open and accountable government innovates, once again, by providing a guide on the role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. In short, the justice minister develops bills, policies, programs, and services for Canadians in various areas of law, while the Attorney General of Canada is the chief crown prosecutor.

Pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, and as reiterated in our “Open and Accountable Government” plan, the Minister of Justice is responsible for ensuring that the administration of public affairs complies with the law. The minister is responsible for upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rest of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the independence of the courts. The role of the minister is to help the federal departments develop, reform, and interpret legislation. The minister assesses the legal risks associated with the proposals, regulations, and laws brought before cabinet, in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Charter, and clear in both official languages, while taking into account Canada's bijural system, namely our common law and civil law.

Naturally, as all other ministers, the Minister of Justice must adhere to her mandate letter by continuously working with her parliamentary secretary and her advisors to ensure that the work done by her office is done professionally, and that decisions are always made in the public interest.

Her exempt staff give her advice on the political aspects of her duties, while always providing services in a non-partisan way.

The department uses these resources to carry out its duties efficiently and to make informed decisions based on real, verifiable data while adhering to strict ethical standards in all of its activities.

The government also innovated by creating a similar code of ethics for political staff members, who must conduct their activities with integrity and honesty, support the minister's duties, and remain loyal and diligent at all times. That is not something our predecessors had in place.

That is what Canadians have the right to expect from an open, honest, accountable government. However, it is unrealistic to suggest that ministers should be aware of every single thing going on in their department and should take personal responsibility for everything that happens. That would be an unreasonable standard.

Nevertheless, our “Open and Accountable Government” plan states that ministers should take all necessary measures to correct problems that might arise in their portfolios and to be accountable to the House by answering questions. That is how they promote the integrity of our public and democratic institutions.

In that sense, I firmly believe that the claims made by the member for Saint-Albert—Edmonton in this motion are frivolous and unfounded. The minister participated in an event as an MP, which was quite legitimate and in compliance with the Conflict of Interest Act, including section 16, and the Canada Elections Act.

However, by consulting the Ethics Commissioner from the outset, the Minister of Justice demonstrated just how much we all care about conducting our affairs with integrity and diligence. It is to her credit that she took that step, and Canadians view her as being honest and a person of integrity.

She conducted herself in an exemplary manner in this situation. She is an exceptional minister who is dedicated to ensuring respect for the rule of law and defending Canadians' interests. She embodies the guiding principles of our government, and I firmly believe that she will be able to do so throughout her term.

I know that everyone here agrees that we must never give Canadians a reason to distrust their government. They will not always like what we do. Some will not always support our policies, and that is okay. Diverging ideas and opinions are what make our democracy great because they encourage people with different points of view to work together to reach a consensus.

Disagreeing with a policy is quite different from not trusting the government. Canadians should not think that their government and elected representatives play by a different set of rules than the rest of society. There is absolutely no doubt that our “Open and Accountable Government” plan shows that our government is fully invested in the rule of law and the Charter. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government is determined to earn and maintain the trust of all Canadians.

As elected representatives, we should also make this our watchword. We have to carry out many duties as parliamentarians, including participating in committees to weigh the merits of a bill or defend the public.

The current government made a promise to Canadians. It is set out in black and white in the ministerial mandate letters, in our election platform, and in our various policy documents. We will keep that promise.

In my opinion, everyone in the House should accept our promise and commend us for it. Canadians should demand nothing less. They deserve an open and accountable government.

In closing, I would like to remind the House that the men and women who represent their communities in the Parliament of Canada are dedicated to their jobs, regardless of which party they belong to.

As the Prime Minister so aptly stated during the election campaign, Canadians need to believe that their government is on their side and that it is eager to work with them to solve real problems and to bring real change.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

Bombardier

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it only took the government a few weeks to decide to hand over $10 billion to GM, but the Bombardier file has been on hold for over a year.

The Conservative government did nothing, and the Liberals are even worse: they are doing more harm than good. With a weak dollar and share prices at rock bottom, only the Bombardier family's votes are protecting the company from a foreign takeover and, ultimately, its demise.

Now the government wants to drop the safety net and is threatening the company's very existence in Quebec. Who is the government consulting for advice on this file? It has turned to an American bank, Morgan Stanley, as though Wall Street would recommend keeping Bombardier under Quebec control.

I accuse the minister of issuing a political directive that could kill Bombardier. I accuse the government of listening to Wall Street instead of Quebec.

History of Charleswood

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to recognize the efforts of Verna and Len Van Roon in preserving the history of the Charleswood community.

Over the years, they have educated many of my constituents, and indeed myself, on the lives of Charleswood's war heroes. They created a book celebrating the history of the community and they played an instrumental role in the founding and running of the Charleswood Historical Society's museum. In 2009, the community honoured their dedication with a plaque.

Verna is no longer with us, but Len and her son carry on the Van Roon family's important work. They remain tireless champions of Charleswood, committed to improving the community's quality of life.

Our past guides our future. To affirm that Canadians' local history is a part of our shared national history and to recognize the Van Roon family's ongoing contribution, I would ask members to please join me in offering the Van Roons our sincere thanks.

Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 Volunteer Organization

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 for the excellent work it has been doing for my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou over the past 40 years.

This organization's 160 volunteers help the community in many different ways. Their humanitarian mission is to provide services to vulnerable people and help them combat social exclusion.

Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 plays a huge role on the front lines in my riding. It has received a number of honours and has a special relationship with Quebec City regarding all volunteering matters and issues. The organization's volunteers work very hard on many initiatives, including Meals on Wheels, which delivers nearly 5,000 meals a year to people who are unable to cook for themselves.

I commend Centre d'action bénévole Aide 23 for its involvement and the work it does, and I recognize that its dedication to the community serves as a model for similar organizations across the country.

Ted Szilva

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 9, 2016, Sudbury lost one of its pioneers, Ted Szilva. It is a privilege for me to pay tribute to him today.

Ted Szilva was best known as the creator of Sudbury's iconic Big Nickel, a nine metre replica of a Canadian 5¢ piece. It stands today as one of the most photographed landmarks in Canada.

It was in 1963 that Ted, then a 28-year old firefighter, first conceived the idea of developing a tourism centre built around a giant 5¢ piece, a replica mine, and a learning centre to help the public discover the science behind mining.

Ted was a model of resourcefulness. On his own initiative, he obtained a piece of land, raised some money, and designed and began building a park.

Ted minted and sold mail-order coins to raise money. He built the Big Nickel three feet outside city limits because the city refused him a building permit.

Ted Szilva was a community builder, visionary, a loving husband, father and grandfather. He was 81 years old. On behalf of all Sudburians and Canadians, we thank him.