House of Commons Hansard #42 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.

Topics

CBC/Radio-CanadaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents throughout my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands, and it is one that is shared widely across Canada. The petitioners urge the government to restore the funding and to create predictable, long-term, stable funding for the nation's public broadcaster, the CBC and Radio-Canada. I note that progress was made in this direction in the last budget.

Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of my community, as well as from a number of petitioners from Calgary.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize animals as beings that can feel pain. They urge the government to move animal cruelty crimes from the property section of the Criminal Code and strengthen language in federal legislation. A private member's bill currently before the House would help in this direction.

Volunteer Service MedalPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by constituents in my riding of Guelph regarding the creation of a Canadian military volunteer service medal.

Nuclear DisarmamentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present two petitions from my constituents.

The first petition calls upon Parliament to establish a department of peace that would reinvigorate Canada's role as a global peace builder and that would have the abolition of nuclear weapons as a top priority.

Physician-Assisted DyingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to physician-assisted suicide.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to allow sufficient time for broad and timely consultations on this issue and that any legislation passed be stringent and serve to minimize the occurrence of physician-assisted dying. They also call for the legislation to accommodate medical professionals who choose to refuse to participate in this program.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

moved:

That the House urge the Minister of Justice to:

(a) follow her government’s own guidelines for Ministers and Ministers of State as described in Annex B of Open and Accountable Government 2015, that “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”; that “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties”; and that “There should be no singling out, or appearance of singling out, of individuals or organizations as targets of political fundraising because they have official dealings with Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, or their staff or departments”;

Mr. Speaker, it is with disappointment that I rise today to speak to this matter. It is never a good day when a minister of the crown breaches ethical standards which the minister is bound by. It is particularly disappointing when that minister of the crown is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, someone who is bound by the highest ethical standards.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the minister must not only at all times act with the highest degree of integrity, the Minister of Justice must also be seen to at all times act with the highest degree of integrity.

Mr. Speaker, the role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is an important role. It is a unique role, and in that role a special trust is placed in the minister. We are here today to debate this matter because the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has broken that trust.

It was not long ago, in fact it was indeed only in November of 2015, that the Prime Minister, with great fanfare, unveiled “Open and Accountable Government”, the ethical guidelines for which ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the government are bound.

The Prime Minister, in his opening letter contained in “Open and Accountable Government”, said it is not just a matter of adopting the right rules and seeing that those rules are complied with on a technical basis. Rather, he said that ministers in his government would be held to a higher standard; indeed they would be held to the highest standard of honesty, integrity, openness, and accountability. Today we will learn whether the Prime Minister meant what he said and said what he meant, or whether those words, like so many words of the Prime Minister, are merely hollow words with no meaning at all.

The Prime Minister's ethics code states that ministers shall ensure that political and fundraising advertising clearly separates fundraising from department responsibilities. Consistent with that, the Prime Minister's ethics code provides that ministers shall not engage and converse on matters related to their ministerial responsibilities at fundraisers. Despite those rules, this particular fundraiser was billed as a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice; it was not the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, despite the very clear guidelines from the Prime Minister that provide that ministers must separate their ministerial duties from fundraising.

Admittedly, if that was all it was, a situation where the event had been advertised as a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice as opposed to the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, it would be fair to say that it was a breach of the Prime Minister's ethics code, but a minor breach, a technical breach, something that might be attributable to sloppiness, that certainly should not be repeated in the future, but something that would not require any further action.

However, that is not what happened. What happened was far more serious. It was not only advertised as a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice, but as an opportunity for those who paid $500 to engage the minister on matters pertaining specifically to her responsibilities as the minister. If people wanted to talk about medical marijuana, physician-assisted dying legislation, or missing and murdered indigenous women, they could pay $500 for that opportunity. There is only one way to characterize this type of fundraising. It is called “pay-to-play” fundraising. What the minister did was attend and participate in a pay-to-play fundraiser.

It gets worse. It was not only a pay-to-play fundraiser that anyone could attend. Rather, it was targeted to a select group of elite Bay Street lawyers to pay in return for access to the Minister of Justice to talk about issues that pertain specifically to her responsibilities.

Then there was the location of the fundraiser, which was Torys LLP, a law firm which has extensive legal dealings with the federal government. Not only does it deal extensively with the federal government, lobbying of the federal government is one of the core services that Torys LLP provides to its clients. Also, amongst its most senior partners and senior lobbyists, happened to be an individual who was registered to lobby the Minister of Justice up until the eve of the fundraiser.

So much for the Prime Minister's ethics code, which states that ministers shall not raise funds from department stakeholders and lobbyists. Certainly, the Minister of Justice disregarded that part of the Prime Minister's ethics code.

Let us take a step back and look at what we are dealing with. We have a Minister of Justice, who has broad authority and power over legal matters concerning the federal government, attending a fundraiser at which attendees were invited to pay in return for the opportunity to engage the minister on matters that pertain directly to the minister's responsibilities. It was targeted to a select group of Bay Street lawyers, hosted at a law firm with extensive legal dealings with the federal government, including the minister's own department, and which counted as one of its most senior lobbyists someone who up until the eve of the fundraiser was registered to lobby the minister herself. That is what we are dealing with. It stinks. That is what it does.

What is very clear is that the minister broke the Prime Minister's ethics code by failing to ensure that fundraising advertising did not mix fundraising with her responsibilities as minister. The minister broke the Prime Minister's ethics code by raising funds from department stakeholders. The Minister of Justice broke the ethics code by failing to sufficiently separate her duties as Minister of Justice with Liberal Party fundraising activities; and the Minister of Justice broke the Prime Minister's ethics code by giving at least the appearance of preferential access to government.

These are not technical breaches of the Prime Minister's ethics code; these are substantial breaches of the Prime Minister's ethics code; these are multiple substantial breaches of the Prime Minister's ethics code.

Instead of taking responsibility for these multiple breaches, the minister refuses to stand up and answer even the most basic questions about this sordid fundraising affair. If the minister has nothing to hide and if everything is above board, then the minister, as a starting point, could release the list of attendees at the fundraiser, but the minister will not do that. I guess her reason is that there really is nothing that could be above board about a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada participating in a pay-to-play fundraiser.

Canadians deserve better than this from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Canadians deserve better than a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada engaged in pay-to-play fundraisers. Canadians deserve a Minister of Justice who adheres to the highest ethical standards in government. Canadians deserve not only a Minister of Justice who is at all times independent, but a Minister of Justice who is at all times seen to be independent.

By attending this pay-to-play fundraiser, the Minister of Justice has not only breached the Prime Minister's ethics code; the minister has compromised her independence and impugned the integrity of her office.

I would be remiss if I did not note that it was not long ago that members on that side of the House, when they were in opposition, certainly had harsh words for the former minister of Canadian heritage in the previous Conservative government, the Hon. Shelly Glover.

Shelly Glover, as minister, attended a $50-a-head fundraiser, not a $500-a-head fundraiser, and upon arriving at this fundraiser she discovered that there were department stakeholders in attendance at the fundraiser. What did Shelly Glover do when that happened? She immediately reported the incident to the Ethics Commissioner, she took responsibility, she returned the cash that was raised from the fundraiser, and she instructed her electoral district association to be absolutely certain that, in the future, department stakeholders were not invited and in attendance at fundraising events. That is what Shelly Glover did under the previous Conservative government. What has the currents minister done?

The current minister has refused to take responsibility for her actions. She has refused to answer basic questions about who was there and what was said. The minister has refused to release the list of attendees. The minister has refused to return the pay-to-play cash.

Instead of saying, at the very least, that she made a mistake and that this would not happen again, the minster is lined up to attend yet another pay-to-play fundraiser, effectively thumbing her nose at the Prime Minister's ethics code, and thumbing her nose at Canadians who expect their ministers to be open, accountable, transparent, and independent. If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada took her responsibility seriously and took the office she holds seriously, the minister would do the right thing: stand up, apologize, and return the pay-to-play cash.

If the Prime Minister's ethics code is worth the paper it is written on, if it is actually meaningful, if it is something more than just hollow words and hollow gestures, which sadly have become hallmarks of the current young government, then the Prime Minister will insist that the Minister of Justice return the pay-to-play cash, if the Minister of Justice does not see fit to do so herself. Very simply, the Prime Minister's ethics code demands that the minister return the pay-to-play cash; and Canadians deserve no less.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a step back and look at the facts here.

The Minister of Justice was proactive in seeking the advice of the Ethics Commissioner before she attended the event, and the minister was advised that it was okay for her attend.

Second, the minister stated in this chamber that, at this fundraiser, she discussed the future of Canada.

Third, the information the member is seeking with regard to who, how much, and all that other information is available online, and he can clearly have access to that information, at his will.

Fourth, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has received a three-page response from the Ethics Commissioner outlining her response to his questions.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. What part of that three-page response from the commissioner did you not understand?

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would like to remind the member that when she is saying “you”, she is directing the question to the chair and not to the member, and I can tell her that I understood.

Second, I would remind members on this side of the House that, when others are speaking, you should show them respect. If you have comments or wish to say anything, please wait for your turn to ask a question.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary indicated that the Minister of Justice took steps to contact the Ethics Commissioner in advance of the fundraiser. In fact, the fundraiser became public on April 5, through CBC. It was only after the fundraiser became public that the minister saw fit to contact the Ethics Commissioner, so the Minister of Justice did not take proactive steps. In fact, this fundraiser was intended to be secret. The Minister of Justice did not want Canadians to know about it. The Minister of Justice wanted to keep Canadians in the dark. Canadians would not have known about it and Canadians would have been kept in the dark but for the fact that the fundraiser was leaked to the CBC, and it was only then that the Minister of Justice saw fit to go to the Ethics Commissioner.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister asked about the letter that I received back from the Ethics Commissioner. The letter merely stated that the minister did not break section 16 of the Conflict of Interest Act, that the minister did not technically break the law. I do not think that is the standard that the Prime Minister set when he unveiled an open and accountable government. I would think that all Canadians would expect ministers to adhere to the law. The issue is that she broke the Prime Minister's ethics code.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I think that irony is lost on Conservatives. Even though they are pointing out a real problem and something that will appear to be really strange and odd to many Canadians, let me remind them of some of their old friends. Do the Conservatives remember Dean Del Mastro, Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and others? Do they remember the in and out scandal? Do they remember the RCMP getting to the Conservative Party office? It is always dangerous to throw rocks when one lives in a house of windows.

I will ask this for my hon. colleague. What did the Conservative Party do when it was in office recently to change the law about conflict of interest, to strengthen the ethics codes, and to restore the trust of Canadians in their federal government?

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party took office after the Liberal Party brought the sponsorship scandal to Canada. The former Liberal government brought corruption in government to a level that had never before been seen by Canadians. That was the situation that our previous Conservative government inherited from the former Liberal government.

What did the Conservative government do when it came to office? It took action. It cast the Federal Accountability Act, the most open and comprehensive piece of legislation to open up government. We banned secret donations to political parties. Our Conservative government strengthened the powers of the Ethics Commissioner and the Auditor General and improved access to information.

The record of the previous Conservative government is a record to be proud of, when it comes to openness and transparency. That is something that cannot be said about the former Liberal government, and it is starting to look as if the current Liberal government is following the sordid record of the previous Liberal government.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for trying to hold us to a higher standard here in the House. One thing I heard in his speech was about trying to get hold of the list of who attended the fundraiser. I have gone to the Elections Canada website and found that we cannot actually search by specific funding events, so it is very difficult to get that information.

My concern is that the Minister of Justice, in her role, will be appointing judges and other positions of note within the department, and it could be construed that people who payed to play are getting preferential treatment. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for the good question.

Yes, it is true that this information is publicly available, but it is not readily available in the sense that people can go online and find out the names of individuals who attended a specific fundraising event on a specific date. In fact, had this fundraiser not been leaked to the CBC, Canadians might very well have never discovered that the minister attended this fundraiser, because it is quite possible that no one would have been able to put all the pieces together.

That is a problem. It is particularly a problem given the appearance of preferential access. It may be that although the minister broke the Prime Minister's ethics code, there really is nothing to hide and everything was more or less above board. If that is the case, then the minister can do something very easily, which is to release the list of attendees. It is very simple. It would be a major step to help clear the stench that surrounds this event.

I really, for the life of me, cannot understand why the minister is reluctant to do this if she really has nothing to hide.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but my colleague on the other side pretends he is a judge and starts to bluster about the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice while having difficulty distinguishing between Mr. Speaker and Madam Speaker.

If he believes strongly in what he is saying and he has enough courage, why does he not go outside the chamber and claim what he is claiming, rather than taking advantage of being in the chamber that protects him? My question to the hon. member on the other side is this: why does he not go to the ethics commission and complain, perhaps giving it some advice on reform?

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, I am really amazed by that question. Obviously the member has not been paying much attention to this issue at all. If he had, he would know that I not only wrote to the Ethics Commissioner but also made my letter public. Not only did I make my letter public but I have also gone on television about this issue. I have talked to the media. I have engaged the public. I am not hiding behind parliamentary immunity.

The member should know better.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today to speak on this baseless motion put forward by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. While this motion has no merit, I am excited that after 10 long years of being in the dark, of dealing with one of the most opaque and secretive governments in our history, Canadians finally have a government that they can trust and depend on.

I am proud to rise today to talk about a government that is committed to accountability and transparency, a government that espouses a simple but powerful idea: open government is good government.

Before I get into what our current government has been doing to advance accountability and transparency, I want to take a moment to remind my colleagues across the way of what the former Conservative government was responsible for, in case they have forgotten.

It was the former Conservative government that was behind the in-and-out scheme in 2006 that had them pleading guilty for exceeding election spending limits and submitting fraudulent election records.

The Conservatives transferred money between different levels of their party to obfuscate their election spending and circumvent Elections Canada rules in order to exceed spending limits.

In total, $1.3 million was transferred to 67 riding offices to pay for national advertising for the Conservative Party during the 2006 federal election. These offices included those of several cabinet ministers of the day, such as foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon, Treasury Board president Stockwell Day, natural resources minister Christian Paradis, and intergovernmental affairs minister Josée Verner, as well as the former foreign affairs minister, the current member for Beauce.

It is clear that unethical behaviour is deeply entrenched on that side of the House. Unfortunately, in the end it is Canadians who have to pay. Over a five-year period, investigations to uncover this Conservative scheme cost taxpayers $2.3 million.

The Conservative tactics that hinder our democratic system do not end there.

Let us recall the robocall scandal during the 2011 federal election, when individuals from the Conservative Party sought to suppress voter turnout through misleading calls in Guelph and elsewhere. In that case, a former Conservative staffer was found guilty of using misleading calls to send voters to the wrong polling station on the day of the election.

In ridings across the country, hundreds of voters had reported receiving calls purporting to be from Elections Canada that gave erroneous information on the location of polling stations.

It is also that party whose former minister of human resources was found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act when in 2011 she awarded federal money to an infrastructure project that was backed by an individual with close ties to the former prime minister.

It was the former Conservative government that believed it could hide unethical behaviour with a $90,000 payout.

Also, how can we forget Dean Del Mastro, who was a Conservative parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister and who has been found guilty for violating the Canada Elections Act during the 2008 election? Now we have corruption in all three elections. Mr. Del Mastro has been convicted of three electoral offences, including failing to report a personal contribution of $21,000 that he made to his own campaign and filing a false report.

However, unethical behaviour is not limited to just the Conservatives. The NDP misappropriated millions of taxpayer dollars when it used its parliamentary office budgets to pay for satellite party offices across the country.

In that case, 68 NDP MPs improperly pooled their House of Commons office budgets to pay for the salaries of 28 staffers to work in satellite offices in Montreal, Quebec City, and Toronto. In total, the NDP misappropriated $2.75 million of taxpayer money. The NDP has still not repaid this amount.

This is unacceptable behaviour. Canadians deserve better.

Unfortunately, the list goes on for both parties across the floor. This is just a small window into the type of behaviour from that side of the aisle that Canadians have grown tired of.

Our government knows that Canadians deserve and expect more from their members of Parliament. That is why our government is committed to full accountability to Canadians. We expect ministers and parliamentary secretaries to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced.

We believe in integrity, honesty, and transparency—all values that are exemplified by our Minister of Justice.

In fact, while the member for St. Albert—Edmonton tries to make claims against the Minister of Justiceabout her conduct, it was the minister who proactively sought the advice of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. She attended a fundraising event—something that all members here have done before and no doubt continue to do—as an MP and engaged with Canadians.

In my opening remarks, I said that this motion was baseless. Let me tell members why.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton wrote to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and received a response indicating that the Minister of Justice was not in contravention of the act— yet here we are, debating a motion from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton trying to suggest otherwise.

I would ask that the member from across the way again review the response he received from the commissioner. It might, on a second reading, provide him with the answer he is seeking.

To be clear, in case the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and members across the way are not aware, with regard to the specific activity, pursuant to Elections Canada regulations, the Liberal Party will be entirely responsible for all costs associated with the event.

As I said, our government is committed to accountability and transparency. Even before forming government, the Liberal Party has always been raising the bar on transparency.

In 2013 the Liberal Party was the only party to require members to proactively disclose expenses. We believe Canadians deserve to know how their dollars are being spent.

The Liberal Party also introduced motions to advance transparency and accountability in the House. Unfortunately, the NDP did not support this effort to increase transparency and the motions did not pass.

Finally, in 2014, a Liberal motion that called upon the Board of Internal Economy to adopt a more comprehensive disclosure mechanism received all-party support. We are proud to have led the way on this front.

In November 2015, as part of this commitment, the Prime Minister published a ministerial code of conduct entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. This guide is available on the Prime Minister's website for all Canadians to read. It is an important and fundamental document for the government.

I would like to draw the House's attention to some of the main ideas in this document.

Today our government continues to work toward increased transparency and accountability. As part of this commitment, in November the Prime Minister issued “Open and Accountable Government”, a guide for the conduct of his ministry. This is an important and foundational document for the government, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of its key themes and topics.

As the Prime Minister states in his message to ministers at the start of “Open and Accountable Government”:

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.

I would like to take this moment to again highlight the conduct of the minister, who proactively sought advice from the commissioner. She is someone Canadians can depend on as an individual with utmost integrity. She is someone Canadians can trust to protect our rights and ensure that our legislation continues to meet the highest standards of equity, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.

I am proud to be working in this House alongside such an exemplary individual. I am also proud to be part of a government that understands the importance of integrity and honesty. This importance is highlighted in “Open and Accountable Government”. As the Prime Minister states:

To be worthy of Canadians’ trust, we must always act with integrity. This is not merely a matter of adopting the right rules, or of ensuring technical compliance with those rules. 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.

To assist members in meeting these duties, “Open and Accountable Government” sets out the Prime Minister's expectations for their personal conduct, which includes compliance with statutory obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act, with the ethical guidelines set out in annex A of the guide, and with the guidelines on fundraising set out in annex B.

While I am on the topic of the Lobbying Act, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some key features of this act.

The Lobbying Act requires anyone who lobbies federal public office holders to register as a lobbyist with the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. All lobbyists are obligated under the act to report on lobbying activities, including communication with designated public office holders, on a monthly basis. This information is published on the Internet on the public registry maintained by the Commissioner of Lobbying.

Who is a lobbyist? The Lobbying Act identifies two types of lobbyists.

A consultant lobbyist is an individual who, for payment, communicates with public office holders on behalf of any person or organization. This individual may be a professional lobbyist but can also be any individual who, in the course of his or her work for a client, communicates with or arranges meetings with a public office holder.

An in-house lobbyist is an individual who is an employee of an organization and whose duties are to communicate with public office holders on behalf of his or her employer.

If the employer is a corporation, there are two other ways in which a person can be identified as an in-house lobbyist. The first is if that individual's duties are to communicate with public office holders on behalf of any subsidiary of the employer. The second is if that individual's duties are to communicate with public office holders on behalf of any corporation of which the employer is a subsidiary.

As I said earlier, all lobbyists are obligated under the act to report on lobbying activities, including communications with designated public office holders, on a monthly basis.

What are these activities? The Lobbying Act defines activities that, when carried out for compensation, are considered to be lobbying. Generally speaking, they include communicating with public office holders about changing federal laws, regulations, policies, or programs, obtaining a financial benefit, such as a grant or a contribution, and in certain cases, obtaining a government contract. As well, in the case of the consultant lobbyist, it would include arranging a meeting between a public office holder and another person qualified as lobbying.

The commissioner has provided additional interpretation on what must be reported. In-house and consultant lobbyists must report all oral and arranged communications relating to financial benefits, even when initiated by a public office holder. Likewise, consultant lobbyists must report oral and arranged communications relating to a contract regardless of who initiated the communication.

What are these communications the act refers to? For the purposes of the Lobbying Act, communications include both verbal and written. Examples of verbal communications with a public office holder are arranged meetings, phone calls, informal communication, and grassroots communications. Examples of written communications with a public office holder include hard copy or electronic formats.

Some types of communication do not require registration. These include, for example, inquiries about publicly available information and general inquiries about the terms and conditions of programs and application processes.

Registration is also not required for participation in government initiated activities, such as consultations, hearings, round tables, or like activities where transparency is comparable to that of a parliamentary committee where participants, proceedings, and decisions are readily made public. The same goes for preparation and presentation of briefings to parliamentary committees.

As I mentioned, the Lobbying Act requires anyone who lobbies federal public office holders to register as a lobbyist to the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. Who are these public office holders? Public office holders as defined under the act are any employee or officer of Her Majesty in right of Canada. This includes virtually all persons occupying an elected or appointed position in the federal government, including members of the House of Commons and the other place and their staff.

Now, on a broader level, “Open and Accountable Government” also lays out the fundamental principles of our system of responsible government, including the core tenets of individual and collective ministerial responsibility.

All this to say that the minister did not break any rules. She is completely in compliance with the law. Her actions were consistent with the actions of other members of this place and I defend her actions very strongly. I challenge any member to not fundraise and see how the next election goes.

More important, there has been no violations of any ethics codes by members of the government since October 19, 2015. Prior to that is entirely another story. When will the member for Calgary Heritage, for example, release his donor list from his leadership run of the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party? Members will remember that party. Its first official name was C-CRAP. When will the member for Calgary Heritage release his donor list for his leadership run for the Conservative Party? What does he have to hide? How many members have been taken away in leg irons and from which parties were they?

The Conservatives talk about ethics as if they have some basis for doing so, as if they do not have the longest history of unethical practices.

There are a couple of books I would refer them to. One is called On The Take. Another one is called Blue Trust. These are fascinating books by author Stevie Cameron on the long and colourful history of Conservative ethical standards.

I am looking forward to having this conversation go a little further and hearing more about how the Conservatives believe they understand what ethics are and how they believe they have any moral basis to bring it up.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. It was interesting that two-thirds of the member's speech was a bunch of bluster in regard to history rather than the facts of the case that is before us.

He mentioned their proposed standard of withstanding the highest of public scrutiny, so I have some very simple questions for the member.

Does a pay-to-play event by a minister of justice for $500 meet Canadians' highest public scrutiny? Does a $500 donation and a face-to-face meeting with a minister of justice who makes judicial appointments withstand the highest public scrutiny in Canadians' eyes? Does a minister accepting an invitation by a law firm which has significant dealings with the federal government to attend a lavish reception catered by the law firm in its offices withstand the highest public scrutiny? Finally, would any appointment in the future of any person who attended that event withstand the highest public scrutiny?

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, and I should probably insert a coin to continue this conversation as that is how we pay to play around here.

The minister followed every rule. The minister acted within the practices of this place. Every member here must fundraise. That is what we must do to fund our next election campaigns.

If we want to have a conversation about how to get money out of politics, that is a conversation I am open to, but we have to operate within the rules that we have here. In that context, the minister had every right and every obligation to hold fundraisers and carry through with her activities in that regard.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone here would argue with the fact that people need funding to carry out their political activities.

Let us focus on the fact that the minister's actions violated the Liberals' own code of conduct. Annex B states the following:

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

That is exactly what we are talking about here. First of all, it was clearly against the Liberals' own code of conduct. Second of all, the minister said she attended the fundraising event organized by the law firm Torys LLP as the member for Vancouver Granville.

Can my colleague tell us what concerns and desires of the people of Vancouver Granville the minister shared with Torys LLP?

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, I was not invited to the event, either.

However, if everyone was invited to an activity to support the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, we would see how many people would want to attend. I know the member would be very keen to have everyone attend.

Fundraising is part of the job of an MP. The minister did her job well, and I encourage her to continue to do so.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, we are wasting time today with a supply motion that deals with one specific case. A large conversation could be had about the ethical framework of this place and the failure of the previous government. Although the former prime minister promised to bring in 52 specific changes to ethics, 22 of those promises were never kept. That government changed the ethics code in the Federal Accountability Act by removing the duty to act honestly. It would be good to get that back in.

This issue is also worth debating in terms of the context of fundraising, and what more could be done to take undue influence out of money.

I do not approve of the current level of ethics rules for this place, but I do not believe the current minister violated the current ethics rules. They could be higher and we could all insist that the government do more to ensure that fundraising events like this do not happen.

Would the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle agree with me that the overall standards should be raised both to ensure that with fundraising events there is more public money in election campaigns and exclude influence and to ensure that we return the duty to act honestly to federal ethics codes?

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising ActivitiesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, there is always room for improvement and I am always open to looking at more improvement.

I want to congratulate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on a book that she wrote which I read when I was younger called How to Save the World in Your Spare Time . I found it quite inspirational.

I applaud the member's constant work in the public interest.