Debates of April 19th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising Activities

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Status of Women for her speech today.

This is about trust. That is all it is. I will not go as far as saying the Minister of Justice misled Canadians. Again, we will go back to saying maybe there was a mistake made, but it also should pass the smell test. I have a quote here that I would like to read:

...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.

Who said that? It was a former premier of British Columbia, a former attorney general of British Columbia, and a former Liberal minister of health, Ujjal Dosanjh. If it does not pass the smell test with this gentleman, how can the government expect it to pass the smell test for Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually we have an Ethics Commissioner, and the Minister of Justice followed all of the requirements of a minister in consulting with the Ethics Commissioner about the appropriateness of this particular fundraiser.

Like the Canadians who have placed their trust in us, I have confidence in the Ethics Commissioner's ruling, and I believe that the Ethics Commissioner has details that perhaps the people quoted by the member do not.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot in this place, including from the hon. member, about what the law states and the ruling by the Ethics Commissioner, but what troubles me is that this new Liberal government has a propensity, instead of amending the law to include what they uphold as stronger principles—for example, with environmental assessment, instead of amending the rules to allow citizens to participate—to simply issue non-binding guidelines.

The member's party in November last year issued “Open and Accountable Government”, stating that ministers and parliamentary secretaries must ensure their fundraisers avoid soliciting political contributions.

Then the Prime Minister issued to all of his ministers and parliamentary secretaries the very clear directive that they must ensure that they do not appear to affect the exercise of official duties or access of individuals:

There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access....

There should be no singling out, or appearance of singling out of individuals....

Those are very clear directions to the ministers and parliamentary secretaries that they should take greater care in solicitation of political contributions.

There is a lot of argument being made that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was there in her own right, but surely the presumption is that the Minister of Justice is there with people who could potentially be seeking judicial appointments. Surely greater care and attention should be taken by the Minister of Justice, of all cabinet members.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the question is in that statement, but I will say that in fact we stand by the “Open and Accountable Government” policy. It is a significant improvement in our commitment to transparency and accountability to Canadians.

Furthermore, the Minister of Justice dealt with her responsibility to act in an ethical manner by seeking the advice of the Ethics Commissioner. This is not to be understated. We all have the responsibility as ministers to work with the Ethics Commissioner. In fact, I have several times asked the Ethics Commissioner about actions that may or may not be prudent and have received excellent advice.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Status of Women for giving her statement and giving us a better history of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

In my discussions with people in my community and riding, people talk about jobs, about health, about transit funding, about the budget. There are many questions that they have raised. When I heard the opposition presenting this motion, there were a lot of questions about the trust and the faith of Canadians, and that is what the issue is.

Does the minister have any comments about what she is hearing in her community about trust and faith? What are people looking for?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have not had any conversations about this issue in my riding in terms of the Minister of Justice. Just as the member has pointed out, the conversations I am having are twofold. The first is about the incredible need that exists in our communities for good legislation that addresses many of the needs that Canadians are facing in regard to housing, employment, the widening gap between people who have wealth and those who do not, and the difficulty people have in accessing services. These are the kinds of things that I am facing.

In our constituency work, one of the things we deal with most frequently in Thunder Bay—Superior North, which surprised me, is immigration issues. One would not think that would be the case in a riding that is not known for a vast amount of immigration, but because of changes made that have deleteriously affected our immigration system, many people in our riding are struggling tremendously to address the needs that they face.

I echo my colleague's concerns around diverting the conversation from these very real challenges that Canadians face to something that has been explained over and over in the House that has the full consent of the Ethics Commissioner.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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

Since arriving in the House today, I have heard members of the government and the second opposition party use words such as “frivolous motion”, “baseless motion”, “without merit”, and other similar expressions to describe our party's motion. They may not realize that we are talking about conflict of interest, privileged access, undue influence, and people's cynicism regarding politicians.

When I entered politics, a journalist asked me what I would do first if I were elected to government and had the power to change something. I replied that I would take concrete steps to restore people's faith in politicians' ability to handle issues related to immigration, finance, and defence along with all of the other issues that people in our ridings talk to us about. We must restore that trust.

Does my hon. colleague think that it was ethically acceptable for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, whose husband is a lobbyist, to attend a fundraiser hosted by a group of lawyers, a lobby?

If so, does she agree that the minister should reimburse all of the money that was raised during the event?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about trust. It is the member opposite and his party who are seeking to undermine the trust of Canadians.

I have to tell the member and this House that when I was campaigning for the first time for a federal office, one of the most disheartening things I heard was the distrust that Canadians had in their politicians, based on 10 years of unethical behaviour.

To me, one of the best privileges of being an MP is restoring that trust. As I travelled through my riding after winning this candidacy, after becoming an MP for Thunder Bay—Superior North, after receiving the great honour of becoming a cabinet minister, Canadians in my riding and across this country were thanking the government for bringing back accountability, transparency, and ethics. They said that they believe in the work we are doing. They know that it will not be without difficulty and that we will not always agree, but they know that we will always do our best.

I am incredibly and immensely proud of the response that Canadians are giving to our government.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has certainly brought back Liberal ethics, as the Minister of Status of Women has said, Liberal ethics that led to the sponsorship scandal, Liberal ethics that led to many issues over the years, Liberal ethics that have led to a justice minister providing access to lawyers who potentially could request positions on the bench in the future.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Before I begin, I would like to comment on one other thing that the Minister of Status of Women said, which was that this issue is not important to Canadians. Present today, aside from many parliamentarians, are members of the Barrie and area firefighters association, who believe it is so important that they joined us in the chamber today.

I stand to speak to the motion sponsored by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding the fundraising exploits of the Minister of Justice. She is not the first minister of the crown to exercise poor judgment in attending a fundraiser staged by individuals who seek to gain from their responsibilities. This has happened on numerous occasions on both sides of the House. Sometimes it was because the individual did not know, sometimes it was because the minister did not yet understand his or her position, and sometimes it was because the party was trying to raise funds and cared not for the conventions of this honourable House.

Members on the government side will use past issues to clutter today's debate, to rationalize the legitimacy—or illegitimacy, as I see it—of the Minister of Justice's fundraising with lawyers. To put this to rest in advance, I want to outline the most applicable circumstances surrounding this issue.

A minister in the last government attended a fundraiser for $50 per person, at which there were stakeholders present from the minister's portfolio. The minister was unaware that the event was raising funds using stakeholders from the portfolio. Subsequently, the minister returned all of the funds and addressed the situation immediately.

In the end, the Ethics Commissioner decided that while this event was not technically against the law, the commissioner stated in the ethics report's conclusion that it was “clearly inappropriate”. This sets the standard for both what is expected of a minister in not attending such a fundraiser and also how to respond in an open and honest fashion if a mistake is made in the future.

Other standards that need to be met in matters regarding fundraising are outlined by the Prime Minister. In the letter to his ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and Canadians about open and transparent conduct, the Prime Minister said the following:

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. As public office holders, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are subject to the Part I requirements of the Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders set out in Annex A, as well as the best practices for fundraising and dealing with lobbyists that are set out in Annex B. 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.

I repeat, “This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law”, meaning the standard of care is not just to meet the regulation of the law of this land but to be without ethical question and to maintain the credibility of the position with the public.

There is no question that the minister has crossed ethical lines by attending a Liberal fundraiser for members of the law society, whom she oversees.

The Minister of Justice is responsible for naming individuals to the bench and for overseeing the judicial system in Canada. Therefore, having lawyers who could be requesting appointments as judges paying money to meet the person who would appoint those judges is an obvious ethical lapse.

There can be no question regarding the minister's ethics. It would undercut the credibility of not just the Minister of Justice, but the government appointments process, and indeed, the government itself. Since the Prime Minister is failing to hold his minister to account on this matter, it leaves Canadians again questioning the legitimacy of his words, spoken and written, which are in direct contradiction to his actions that are taken or not taken.

My colleagues have clearly outlined the ethical lapses regarding the minister's fundraising practices from a parliamentary standpoint, but what about the ideal that the Canadian government is as accessible to each and every Canadian in the same way?

I would like to tell a little story.

I had the opportunity to take a civics and careers class in high school. At the time, my family was living in government housing. I fell in love with politics, because everything I read about in those textbooks showed that if one believed enough, if one hoped long enough, if one worked hard enough, one would be able to attain all of the successes that are available in this country, not because of the amount of money one has, not because of one's age, not because of a plethora of reasons that we could come up with, but because we live in a country where each and every person is valued equally regardless of race, religion, or means, and all those other issues.

In my opinion, what this fundraiser has done is to create two classes of citizens in this country. One is the citizen who must pay to go and give feedback, input, and influence to a minister at $500 a head, and those who do not have that access, those who do not have the means to be at those meetings. What this is creating in our country is an unequal footing for those who have the financial means to show up and those who have the friends to get the invites. Quite frankly, it is wrong. It is not what our country stands for, and it is not what our government should be practising.

When the Prime Minister during the election promised open and transparent government, when the Prime Minister during the election promised that his government would be different, this is not the different that I thought I would see. I thought we would make gains on the transparency and accountability front, but we have found the opposite.

Not only has the minister already conducted herself in this way as a minister of the crown, but she is committed to holding another fundraiser in the future. I mentioned earlier a minister in the previous government who realized immediately that the fundraising efforts were done in an incorrect fashion and returned the money and dealt with it right away. The minister is literally doubling down, going from $500 a head to $1,000. That is not the example I want us to set for our youth, that if one has $1,000, one can meet the minister, but if one does not, then one cannot. It is wrong, and I do not believe any of these things about showing up and participating as a member of Parliament. I hope that Canadians see through this as well.

Finally, I think it is important that we know who is benefiting. Who is it that is attending these fundraisers and paying to be able to talk with a minister and perhaps influence policy or maybe even influence appointments down the road? We will find out eventually, but it is important on these matters, because of the ethical questions, that the minister be forthright, step up, and release all of the information available.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find those comments to be quite interesting. I do understand, however, the member's cynicism being a member of a party that when in government committed atrocities and crossed the line. Some examples are the Senate hush money; contempt of Parliament; government failure to share budget information, even after a court order; granting immunity; falsifying documents; duplicity of project costs; the advertising scam; corruption; and the list goes on. With that, I do understand the cynicism of the member.

We have asked this question many times and I would like to hear a yes or no answer: Has the integrity commissioner failed in her judgment?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the integrity commissioner was very clear that there are laws that define the interaction between ministers and the public in fundraising opportunities. There are also things which she has labelled and clearly communicated as wrong, as being unethical and inappropriate. That was clearly communicated in an identical circumstance during the last government. The funds were returned in advance and all necessary measures were taken. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has failed to learn a lesson from that. Instead of learning a lesson and not conducting its activities in such a way, the Liberal government has asked how it can exploit its position and gain money for its coffers for the next election, not only once, but twice.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to perception.

Canadian taxpayers are exhausted and disillusioned, and taxpayers in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh specifically are feeling the same way.

Does the hon. member believe that we are ready for a comprehensive and crucial review of the Conflict of Interest Act? Is it time for us to make real meaningful changes that would address the problematic issue of perception and appearance?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at any of the acts that govern the way in which we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, the way in which ministers of the crown conduct themselves, it is important to remember that they are living, breathing documents. I would hope that if we see people, ministers and other parliamentarians, looking for loopholes that we would look at opportunities to make the acts better.

The cynicism that the member has heard in her riding is something that I have heard across the board, especially from young people. At 30 years of age, I am a young member of Parliament. I have had the opportunity to speak with many young people who feel that they are being told one thing during an election campaign and one thing during a throne speech, but the government's actions are completely different. It needs to change.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague did a great job in presenting his case. I just want to ask my hon. colleague if he believes in some of the rhetoric that we heard from the other side about how today's debate is frivolous. Today's debate is all about a document called “Open and Accountable Government” which has been, if not penned, at least signed by the current Prime Minister of Canada. If so, is any document that the Prime Minister of Canada signs frivolous?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I do not believe it is frivolous. What the Prime Minister wrote set the standard and tone for how the government should conduct itself. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister also appointed people to his front bench who have failed to uphold the tenets of that document.

I would ask the governing party to stop referring to things as being frivolous or small. These are not small issues. These are the underlying tenets of our entire democracy to which all have access. One is accountability of the government. I would ask the Prime Minister to start enforcing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for sharing his time with me today.

Before I get to the formal part of my remarks, I want to introduce Mr. George Taylor. For those in the House who do not know Mr. Taylor, he was a resident of Barrie and is the former solicitor general in the province of Ontario. I am sure you would know him, Mr. Speaker. He is a well-respected former member of the provincial legislature in Ontario.

Just last week on Facebook, Mr. Taylor weighed in on this debate. What he had to say on Facebook was quite interesting and quite telling. I corresponded with Mr. Taylor when I was a city councillor in Barrie. I never had the chance to meet him face to face. He is an honourable man, a man of great conviction, and a man who is well respected.

Mr. Taylor wrote on Facebook, “The Minister of Justice must have missed the conflict of interest course, as did the Ethics Commissioner, to conclude the attendance of a Tory law firm dinner, as she has said to CBC, that she was there as the MP for B.C. Law firms do not ask MPs to dinner. MPs do not appoint judges. They do not grant QCs. They give out great amounts of legal work and determine who to prosecute. The Minister of Justice is to be more independent than other ministers. She will have to learn more about her duties. You are never not a minister.”

Those are wise words from a well-respected man.

I was at the epicentre of this issue when it started taking root. It became a regional issue. I was called to CBC on Tuesday, April 5, to comment about this issue taking place. I was not sure what it was about on my way there, but I was certainly briefed on the issue. When I walked into the CBC building, I was told by a producer that I was going to be interviewed by Mr. Terry Milewski. We knew that this story was going to have legs. We knew that it was going to be one of the lead stories on CBC. As it turned out, it was.

I asked Mr. Milewski what angle he was taking on the story. Quite clearly he told me that he had received an email from someone stating that there was an event to take place with the Minister of Justice at a law firm and that it was, in effect, a secret meeting. There were no formal invitations sent out. In fact, the email reminded people to pay for the event, $500 a ticket as we found out, by going to the Liberal Party of Canada website. However, in searching for the website, there was actually no page. There was a link that led to the website. That was the angle he was taking on the story.

What was interesting about that was the fact that there was a regional component to this. At that time, the controversy in Ontario was breaking out with the Wynne government. We were finding out then about the pay-to-play scenarios that were going on, where cabinet ministers in the Ontario Liberal government were asked to find donors, some of them up to $5,000 each, to attend functions where cabinet ministers would attend. This sounded eerily similar to what was going on in Ontario.

Should it have surprised anyone that this in fact was going on? The reason I say that is it is quite clear now that the same players who are running the Prime Minister's office were the ones who were running the premier's office, both Premier Wynne's and McGuinty's office. It should come as no surprise to any Canadian, and it should come as no surprise to anyone in the House, that this is now happening at the federal level.

I know it is not germane to what we are discussing here, but it should come as no surprise that we are starting to see the debt and deficit situations happen federally that we have seen in Ontario, because the Liberals now have access to a bigger piggy bank and they will surely go at it.

What is interesting and I think is the root of what this whole debate is about, which my hon. colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe spoke about, is that on the Prime Minister's own page it states:

For Canadians to trust our government we must trust Canadians, and we will only be successful in implementing our agenda to the extent that we earn and keep this trust.

To be worthy of Canadians’ trust, we must always act with integrity. [...] As Ministers, you and your staff must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

The Prime Minister goes on to state:

I draw your attention in particular to areas of the guide that we have expanded or strengthened for our mandate, including the guidance on non-partisan use of departmental communications resources in Annex G;

When we look at the government's website and the document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, which was one of the tenets that the Liberals sold Canadians on during the last election, that they would truly be open and accountable, it states:

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

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government. [...]

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should not seek to have departmental stakeholders included on fundraising or campaign teams or on the boards of electoral district associations.

It goes on and on, and speaks to the issue of government ministers being held to a higher standard, as with all governments, in the areas of perceived or real conflicts of interest.

I know that the members opposite will say that it has been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner. We have seen the government House leader stand up time and again in the House and defend the justice minister. For whatever reason, the justice minister is not in a position to defend herself or does not feel that she should be defending herself. Rather, it is the government House leader who is doing that. However, it goes back to the root of the issue, which is the perception of it.

As my hon. colleague from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte said, it does not pass the smell test. It is that question that I was asked on CBC. It does not pass the smell test. I think most Canadians would feel that way. This is about open and accountable government.

It is clear that we have gone back in time to when the Chrétien Liberals were in government. The Liberals are simply paying lip service to Canadians and to this House about their commitment to a high standard of ethical conduct. I am holding out hope that the minister and the Liberal government will do the right thing for Canadians, which is to agree with our motion today, return the money, and apologize for attending the event.

In conclusion, because I believe it is worth repeating, I will repeat what Mr. Taylor, the former solicitor general of this province, said. He stated, “The Minister of Justice is more independent than other ministers. She will have to learn of her duties, you are never not a minister.”

That night, the Minister of Justice attended that fundraising event with one of the largest law firms in the country, which has registered lobbyists who lobby on behalf of organizations right across this country, and who will deal with the justice department and the Attorney General of this country. I suggest to this House that she was a minister that night and she should apologize for her actions and give the money back.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made a good statement when he said that government ministers have to be held to a higher standard. We also heard him, and many of our colleagues on that side of the House, say that this does not pass the smell test. He also acknowledged the fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner made a ruling and found nothing untoward. However, we can see that they clearly are not happy with the ruling, and they have brought this motion to make that statement. Many have risen, including this member, and have said that they are unhappy.

What I would like to learn is this. Are they unhappy with the rules, or are they unhappy with the ruling of the commissioner? Which one are they unhappy with? They are clearly unhappy. The rules have been followed, the commissioner has made a ruling that we followed the rules, and they are still unhappy. Is it the rules they are not happy with, or is it the commissioner?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question on the part of the hon. member.

If we look at what the Ethics Commissioner said subsequent to the ruling, she herself is not happy with the rules. She says that the rules should be looked at.

What is important here, and we are going to hear this all day, as we have heard it all morning, is the fact that it is the Prime Minister's own accountability in this situation that is being called into question. I gave various examples from the Prime Minister's own page, the expectations of his ministers, the “Open and Accountable Government” website, where it says very clearly in annex B:

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

That was not the Ethics Commissioner who wrote that. That was the Liberal government. That was the Prime Minister of our country who made that very clear to his ministers.

I would ask the hon. member subsequent to what he asked me, which part of that did not happen in this case?

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

Mr. Speaker, as one of the two MPs for Barrie, I think the hon. member got the better end of the riding name stick; the other one is just too long for me to remember.

In so far as ministerial conduct is concerned, my colleague quoted from a document referring to ministerial conduct:

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.

When the Minister of Justice left her role as chair of the First Nations Finance Authority, her husband stepped in as the registered lobbyist, and then she went to cabinet meetings to which the Ethics Commissioner had no access to what is discussed at those meetings. Then we find a $20-million kickback in the budget to that same group. Does my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil believe that meets the test laid out by the Prime Minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, one that again calls into question the Prime Minister's own ethical standards that he set for his ministers.

If in fact these types of things are happening, Canadians rightly have a reason to be concerned. What they should be concerned about is what is going on within the government. Are friends, cronies, and Liberal stakeholders benefiting from the fact that the Liberal government has taken over?

I would suggest that it is back to the future, and we are seeing what happened in those years of Liberal cronyism. I am concerned about it, and not just as a parliamentarian; I am concerned about it as an individual Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a cold, so I might lose my voice, but that does not mean I am not tremendously interested in the debate we are having today.

I am obviously pleased to rise today to join with some of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus who have spoken previously to explain to the House and to Canadians why we are opposing what we think is a frivolous and gratuitous motion.

We are proud to oppose the motion. We recognize its cynical origins, and we recognize the attempt to distract Canadians and parliamentarians from issues that we think concern the vast majority of Canadians. It is an attempt to fabricate a circumstance around one of our colleagues, which we believe obviously has no merit.

During my speech, I intend to demonstrate to the House that not only has the Minister of Justice acted honourably, ethically, and in a manner beyond reproach, but I will also, I hope, be able to point out that many current and former members of the other parties in this House could in fact learn enormously from her outstanding actions. I will show how in a few short months, Canadians have witnessed how different and improved things can be when they have a government that truly believes in openness and transparency.

Every action that this government has taken is based upon the idea that as an institution, whether it is a government or Parliament, we can and must do better.

Unfortunately, instead of moving ahead with us on this particular approach, the opposition has chosen to spend today debating a motion which, in our view, as I said, has extremely limited merit. It is designed to fabricate an issue where in fact no issue exists.

Conservatives could have decided to debate today one of the numerous issues that continue to worry Canadians, issues which they have ignored in a decade in government. A few examples might be the weak economic growth that the previous government saw, or Canadians' eroding ability to ensure a secure retirement, or a lack of diversification in our economy, or the increasing unfairness in various government programs such as employment insurance, or a failed relationship with indigenous peoples.

Instead, they want to spend today talking about our colleague, the Minister of Justice, so let us do exactly that.

Today, we are talking about integrity, transparency, and honesty. These are character traits that perfectly describe the Minister of Justice. These principles are at the heart of a good government. They form the foundation on which we will continue to rebuild the relationship of trust between elected members and voters. These are the principles that guide the actions of the government and the actions of our colleague, the Minister of Justice.

When we formed government, the Prime Minister made this clear to all members of cabinet as well as our colleagues in the Liberal caucus.

After a decade where Conservatives found themselves repeatedly before the courts, where insiders close to the former prime minister were hiding, for example, in Panama, fighting extradition, and where a $90,000-payoff to a sitting senator was simply seen as business as usual in the Prime Minister's Office, we believed that things needed to change.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember this, as you were in the previous Parliament. When caught, the former government would deny the charges, obfuscate the facts, and sometimes mislead Canadians.

I heard in my constituency, and colleagues on all sides of this House heard it in theirs, in community after community, that the previous government lacked transparency.

I am happy to say, thanks to the Prime Minister, these darks days are over and have given way, as we see outside Parliament today, to a very sunny way. We have an open and transparent government that believes in putting its trust in Canadians as a way to have Canadians better trust their government.

I know that everyone here agrees. We must never give Canadians a reason to distrust their government. They will not always like what we do, and that is understandable. Some will not support every one of the government's decisions. 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.

However, disagreeing with some decisions is quite different from not trusting the government. Canadians should not think that the government is hiding things from them or not listening to them. Worse yet, they should not think that their elected representatives are playing by a different set of rules than the rest of society. This is a fundamental principle for our government.

As the Prime Minister said, 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 where the Prime Minister set the bar, and we must accept nothing less.

This is exactly what the Minister of Justice has done. Unlike in the previous government, she proactively sought the advice of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is what a responsible government does. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton knows this because when he wrote to that commissioner, she responded to him in writing—it was a three-page letter—and indicated that the justice minister had followed every rule outlined in the applicable legislation.

That is an important difference between how the previous government acted then and how we have chosen to act now. The Conservatives would usually wait until the commissioner found a wrongdoing, then deny and obfuscate the circumstance and, in fact. in some cases try to mislead investigations.

We seek to proactively disclose these concerns to the commissioner. Then we are guided by her advice. That is exactly what the Minister of Justice did, and exactly what the government will continue to do.

Publishing the ministerial mandate letters in November 2015 was a tangible reflection of our commitment. For the first time in Canadian history, a prime minister clearly and publicly articulated exactly what he expected of his ministers. These expectations addressed not only what the ministers should be doing, but also how they should do it. These letters were a blueprint for taking action on a broad scale. They included investing in infrastructure, restoring Canada's constructive leadership in the world, and renewing the nation-to-nation relationship with our indigenous peoples.

However, opposition members know that our economic policy of growing the middle class is extremely popular with Canadians, and exactly the suite of economic policies that Canadians expect. They know that asking the top 1% to do a little more in order to lower taxes on the middle class is more than fair. The Conservatives and the New Democrats, much to our surprise, in the election opposed programs like the Canada child benefit, an economic measure which would help nine out of every ten Canadian families by giving them a more generous tax-free monthly cheque.

They know the importance of investing in crucial infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and transit, green infrastructure and social infrastructure. Because the opposition of the Conservatives to these measures is not resonating with Canadians, they find the need to fabricate an issue involving the justice minister.

Unfortunately for the opposition, but thankfully for the justice minister and for Canadians, all of the rules in this circumstance were followed. The minister met the very high expectations of the Prime Minister, as well as her obligations under the code applying to members of Parliament and the Conflict of Interest Act, which applies to public office-holders, ministers being principal among them.

It is a very old method, sadly, that the Conservatives have spent a decade in protecting. When they cannot win an argument with respect to the substance, they turn to personal attacks and fabricate allegations. We do not have to go very far to find such examples. We can easily remember the numerous spokespeople in the former Conservative government, when they would answer a question in the House of Commons time and again by simply indicating a circumstance that had absolutely nothing to do with the question. Uninterested in the substance of the question, the previous government had one responsibility; that was to ignore the questions posed and respond with a series of baseless and fabricated allegations, something we see at the heart of today's motion.

In addition to the mandate letters published by the government, there is another worthwhile document recognized by the House. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned it, and it deserves close consideration.

I am referring to “Open and Accountable Government”, which the Prime Minister released in November 2015. The title says it all. It is an ambitious and comprehensive document.

I regard that document as a ministerial game plan, a game plan that the minister has always followed in a very responsible manner, I would say before the House.

“Open and Accountable Government” describes what is generally expected of ministers and their staff in terms of their conduct. It provides a framework for establishing an ethical government. Nothing is more important to Canadians.

On the subject of public office holders, the document states:

...they have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.

It also states:

Public office holders, in fulfilling their official duties and functions, shall [as the Minister of Justice did] make decisions in the public interest and with regard to the merits of each case.

This is exactly what the Minister of Justice has done and what she will continue to do. I know my colleagues across the aisle like to fabricate a series of accusations and allegations. Canadians understand that these have no merit. They know that at all times the Minister of Justice followed these rules in a rigorous way and proactively sought the advice of the independent officers of Parliament, who are, in fact, given the responsibility of enforcing those rules and applying them. In the case of a disagreement between an opposition member of the House and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we will always defer to the judgment of the commissioner in all cases.

Openness and transparency for our government is more than a slogan. One example, which we find rather disturbing, is the opposition's continued request to have a list of who attended a particular event in question. The opposition knows full well that the names will, indeed, be made public. As per the Canada Elections Act, donations of over $200 are disclosed and made public by political parties on the Elections Canada website and this information is shared with all Canadians.

These are rules of which we are very proud. The opposition knows full well that these rules apply to the particular event in question and will always apply to events where members of Parliament raise money for political parties or local riding associations. Canadians deserve to know that politicians keep their best interests in mind at all times and will not be swayed by particular funding from particular groups. That is why this transparency is so important.

Unfortunately, that is a principle that some members of the Conservative Party have had considerable trouble in following. We remember when the former prime minister, the current member for Calgary Heritage, ran for the leadership of the then Reform Party. He kept secret the source of $900,000 he raised in that leadership campaign. When that member ran for the leadership of the new Conservative Party, the biggest donors to his $2 million leadership campaign were quickly hidden by the Conservative Party. If it had nothing to hide, we would have assumed this information should properly have been made public. The fact that it has not done so, has led Canadians to question exactly why. The Conservatives refused to share this information with Canadians and we will never know what kind of funding may have motivated the former prime minister in some of the decisions his government made.

In closing, I am proud to be able to say that our colleague, the Minister of Justice, is also a friend. She is doing a tremendous job as the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Her conduct has always been exemplary.

The impressive record of our colleague, the Minister of Justice, of public service, as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as an elected indigenous leader is something we believe should inspire all Canadians.

The Conservatives who brought this motion forward, in an attempt to distract from other issues that we think are more important to Canadians, have themselves a very difficult laundry list of Elections Act violations and ethical breaches.

In question period in previous weeks, I referred to some of the more shocking examples, where Canadians saw the Conservative Party plead guilty in the in-and-out scheme, for example, and pay a $250,000 fine as a political party for not having respected basic Elections Act provisions, which determine spending limits for a national party and a local campaign. People will remember the Conservatives attacked Elections Canada and they attacked the commissioner. When Parliament adjourned one spring and when nobody was looking, on a Friday, they plead guilty and paid a $250,000 fine as a national party for not having followed the elections rules.

There are other spectacular examples, such as the former prime minister's parliamentary secretary being led out in leg irons and handcuffs to a van, and then taken to jail for problems with election financing. I think that might have acted as a break on the Conservative Party's enthusiasm to fabricate allegations against hon. members of the House and members of the cabinet, who follow the rules and serve Canadians.

This is why when this frivolous motion comes to a vote, we look forward to the House defeating it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my friend and my colleague, the hon. government House leader, make his comments. However, in all seriousness, we are dealing with an issue now that seems to contradict on all levels the code of ethics imposed by the Prime Minister on his public office-holders, his ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

While I will agree with the government House leader that the Ethics Commissioner did indeed say there was no violation in her ruling, the Prime Minister went further than just what the technical aspects of an ethics violation may be. He went on to say not only real but perceived conflicts of interest.

My friend and my colleague must agree that for well-heeled lawyers to spend $500 a pop to sidle up to a minister is a perception of conflict. Clearly, these well-heeled lawyers wanted to get next to the minister for a reason that would ultimately, in at least their hopes, benefit the members attending that fundraiser.

The minister and the government House leader have also said on many occasions during question period that all members do the same, that we all engage in the same practice. I will assure my colleague and my friend that a backbencher will not be able to charge $500 or $1,000 to get people out to a fundraiser. It was specifically because it was the Minister of Justice that these lawyers wanted to be in attendance.

Will the member not simply agree that, at the very least, there is a serious perception of conflict of interest, and on that basis alone, the minister should at least apologize if not repay the full amount of the fundraiser?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to scandalize my friend from Moose Jaw, but I can assure him that in fact in our case, in our party, some people do pay $500 to come to events where backbench MPs are featured as guest speakers.

I hosted an event in my riding a year or two ago, and we were then the third party in opposition. I was the guest speaker at my event. I think it was $500 or it may have been $750 a person. It was to get ready for the election campaign. This is how we raise money in constituencies. In all circumstances, we followed the law and the requirements. Therefore, I do not want to disappoint my colleague, but we have members of Parliament, even as the third party in opposition, who are able to attract that kind of support at fundraising events, and we are proud of that.

My colleague said that he could assure us that this kind of event would not have happened in the previous government. However, on February 12, 2015, at the Sutton Place Hotel in Edmonton, the current member for St. Albert—Edmonton hosted a fundraiser where the special guest was the then minister of health, who is now the leader of the opposition. Therefore, a little over a year ago, a very similar event took place. I do not know if there were well-heeled lawyers there, but it was an exclusive event at the posh Sutton Place Hotel with the minister of health. Maybe my colleague has been there.

However, it is interesting that on the Facebook page, the minister of Health and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton said that the minister of health was there simply as the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Spruce Grove. The hypocrisy is a little shocking.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the government House leader that this is perhaps not the most fruitful topic we could spend an entire day debating, but that said, I agree with the motion in that the appearance of a conflict of interest is as important as any real conflict.

Whether the Minister of Justice followed the rules exactly or had the blessing of the Ethics Commissioner after the fact does not really measures up to the fact that we would not be talking about this issue today if there were not a pretty strong appearance of conflict of interest.

Does the government House leader agree that the Conflict of Interest Act needs to be reviewed and more strongly incorporate this concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree a little with the member's statement that the Minister of Justice attendance at a fundraiser, as happens with many members of Parliament on all sides of the House, necessarily leads to the impression of a conflict of interest. What removes the impression of a conflict of interest and what should reassure Canadians is that all of the rules that are public and well known were followed in this case, including the disclosure of all of those who attended this event.

The reason we have severe penalties for people who do not properly disclose political donations—and the former Conservative member for Peterborough saw exactly what happens when we do not follow those rules—is to reassure Canadians. Events like this are a necessary part of the democratic process. Individuals make personal donations, unlike the case with the NDP, which had to pay back union donations that were received inappropriately at one of their conventions. Those types of donations are no longer possible. These are individuals who donate a certain amount of money personally.

All of this disclosure comes out according to law and publicly, and that is what, in our view, makes this is a very normal, very routine part of democracy. The Minister of Justice, in following all those rules, in fact did absolutely nothing wrong, and to suggest that she left an appearance of conflict of interest is extremely disingenuous.