Debates of June 8th, 2017

Canada Elections Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say it is a pleasure to be rising, but at this time of night, that would be a lie, and I do not wish to mislead the House. I am, however, very pleased to be standing to talk about this charade called the election reform legislation. I want to put it in context in the time that is available.

The Liberals released their famous “Open and Accountable Government” guide to much fanfare, but none of it is legally binding, as the Prime Minister demonstrated, of course, by ignoring it altogether.

Canadians have become deeply concerned about the government's fundraising practices. My friend from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston used the expressions Canadians have come to know with the government: “cash for access” and “pay to play”. I had not heard those terms before the government was elected, I concede, but now, of course, we hear them all the time.

Because of that practice, there was a concern about conflicts of interest at these various events. This bill is purporting to be the reform to address Canadians' concerns. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. It is, sadly, a half-baked measure that does not stop the cash for access events from happening whatsoever. It just makes it easier for Canadians to hear about them. I am not sure what that accomplishes.

We know they are happening. I guess we are supposed to feel better as Canadians that now it is out in the open. We can still have private parties where we invite friends of the party to come, and now we will know who the people are on the list. The Prime Minister will be there, or the Minister of Finance. I want to know what this is going to do to the lobbyist business. I know how many of my colleagues are concerned about the lobbying industry and how it is not doing very well. Frankly, why would I want to hire a lobbyist, when I could go myself, pay a few bucks, go and talk to the Minister of Finance, and maybe get the deal? Why spend thousands on a lobbyist? I am pretty persuasive. I will just go and talk him up. That is, of course, regularized by this legislation. I want this to perhaps be subtitled the lobbyists' despair act, because that may be what is going to happen as a consequence.

Not a single recommendation from the ethics committee, which studied the law on political fundraisers, found its way into this mishmash legislation. It is surprising to my colleagues that a committee would not have its recommendations addressed by the government, but I am sad to report that this appears to be the case.

I want to be clear from the outset, because of the way politics is played, that the NDP will of course be supporting this bill so we can refer it to the committee and tear it apart, as it deserves to be torn apart, and so we can actually have a meaningful response to Canadians' concerns about cash for access events.

I have to give credit where credit is due. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston did an excellent job of reminding Canadians why we are here tonight at this late hour talking about this little fig leaf the Liberals are proposing to address the cash for access dilemma. He talked about Chinese billionaires attending Liberal fundraisers and making donations to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and maybe a statue here and there as well, or West Van billionaires having people over for dinner and talking about how the Chinese could buy a nursing care chain and so forth. Again, where were the lobbyists? I guess they did not need to come, because that was discussed at that meeting. Do not take my word for it. The individual who wanted that was actually bragging about his access to the Prime Minister that night.

I also want to salute the member for pointing out another anomaly. Frankly, this law applies to other parties as well as the governing party of the day. It applies to an electoral district association the leader of a party or an aspiring leader would attend. Somehow we are supposed to think that is fair. It is sauce for the goose. It is supposed to be tit for tat. Frankly, I am not sure who wants to go talk to an opposition party. Surely only one party can deliver a cabinet minister. That is the dripping roast lobbyists tend to want.

Good news, we are going to have them in private homes. I asked the minister, when she spoke, if that was covered, because that was in the mandate letter in January the Prime Minister gave the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions. I do not think I got the answer to that question, but I can tell Canadians that the law says they can still have these fundraisers in that West Vancouver billionaire's private mansion, and the Prime Minister will come, and there will be a discussion about hockey games, I guess, or perhaps the events of the day in some foreign land. Far be it to talk about things that might involve cash for access or issues of that sort. I am sure they would never come up.

I have another example. When the Minister of Finance had billions of dollars to invest in infrastructure and other initiatives, such as a new container terminal and the development of federal harbour land in Halifax, what did he do? He had a private Liberal Party fundraiser at the home of a gentleman named Fred George. Fred George is a mining tycoon turned land developer in that city. According to a Globe and Mail article, about 15 people attended the $1,500 per person Liberal Laurier Club event. Among the people who were there was Jim Spatz, a federal director on the Halifax Port Authority board of directors and a land developer. These are exactly the types of cozy coincidences that cause concern to Canadians and give rise to the perception of undue influence, whether a direct conflict of interest exists or not.

One might ask why that is so important. It is because the Prime Minister said it is important. In Annex B of his famous “Open and Accountable Government” document, 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.

Am I stretching it to think this event might just have a tad of potential conflict of interest? That is what the Prime Minister told us would not happen anymore under the enlightened regime before Canadians today that asks us to accept this initiative as addressing that problem. It does not.

What else did the Prime Minister say in his “Open and Accountable Government” document? He said something much more specific.

It states:

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

I do not know about other members, but when I spend $1,500 to go to an event with a large number of Liberal donors and the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, I have a feeling that there might be the potential for conflict of interest. Some cynics might even think preferential access is available.

It is disappointing that the government did not respond to the concerns of Canadians with a genuine and robust effort to actually clean up its fundraising scandals.

I come from the province of British Columbia, where it took a New York Times journalist at a bar in Whistler to call it what it is: the wild west of fundraising. In our province, I am ashamed to tell members, there are absolutely no limits to how much money one can spend. We love preferential access. We think it is great. Contrast that to the province of Quebec, where two or three years ago, after some scandals there, a political decision was made to restrict the maximum donation for a party or an individual to $100. Quebec should be proud of leading the way for this kind of reform. Did the Liberals go anywhere near that? No. They decided that they would have these fundraising parties. Not to worry, because it would all be on the website so people could see who attended. That is not reform. That is a joke. I will come back to that in a moment.

I want to come back to a point I made when I was addressing the Minister of Democratic Institutions. I am sure it was inadvertent, but I believe that people would agree that she left the impression that somehow events that happen in private homes are off limits. They are entirely consistent. In other words, one can still have these cozy events in private homes.

In the mandate letter the Prime Minister gave to that minister, it very clearly said that the law would make fundraisers involving ministers, party leaders, and leadership candidates more transparent, including requiring them to be conducted “in publicly-available spaces”. This is not that law. One can still meet in someone's private home in West Vancouver and talk about transactions with government leaders, and that is just fine. This time they just have to tell us who is there, and that seems to be it. They just have to put it on the website.

That is a very modern solution, but it does not go anywhere near addressing the problem. I would not want anyone to think that somehow these cozy little deals in private homes are off limits. They are not. They are very much alive and well in Canada under this law.

According to media analysis, the Liberal Party scheduled more than 100 cash-for-access events in the year 2016 alone. They are enormously profitable, as we know. We are not just talking about transparency; we are talking about the principle of cash for access itself. As the government once recognized, it is not just about undue influence but about the perception of that undue influence.

If Canadians are watching at this late hour, I need to remind them that the bill does not in any way, shape, or form address the cash-for-access events. They are alive and well and continue to be profitable. A prime minister or a finance minister will be coming to a private residence nearby, but this time people are going to know who is there.

Bill C-50 creates a new class of what are called “regulated fundraising events”, subject to special reporting requirements. In theory, these requirements would apply to a broad range of events with ticket prices over $200. It would require public notice in the days leading up to the event and the public release of the attendees' names within 30 days following the event. In practice, there are glaring gaps, most notably, as my colleague earlier commented, the exclusion for what are called “contributor appreciation events” at party conventions. In other words, the bill as written appears to subject to its reporting requirements an event that requires a $250 donation to attend, but not one organized to express appreciation for individuals who have donated $250. I do not understand that, but that is what the bill says.

For example, the bill would continue to allow donors at the Laurier Club, the high-donor Liberal organization, to contribute $1,500 at party conventions and then gain access to the exclusive events with cabinet ministers and the prime minister. They do not seem to think that is a problem at all. It is too bad the Prime Minister did when he wrote a non-binding document that was celebrated not that long ago, called “Open and Accountable Government”.

If anyone doubts that donors really do expect access in return for their cash, let me quote the website of the Liberal Party's Leaders Circle, an elite tier of donors who not only max out their donation limits set by existing political finance laws but also bundle together at least 10 others. These donors, who brought at least $16,500 to the Liberal Party, are promised a variety of recognition opportunities, including an annual dinner with the leader and invitations to events and discussions with leaders within the party.

What is that? I would call it unique access to the Prime Minister of Canada and members of his cabinet. It just costs a little more. Apparently the ministers attended 31 such appreciation events last year alone. Under this bill, what would change about those? Zero, so it is deeply disappointing that the government did not respond to the concerns of Canadians with a genuine and robust effort to actually clean up political fundraising. It could have followed the lead of other governments that have actually banned politicians and candidates from attending such events. Instead we have a fig leaf and we are supposed to be happy about it.

I have another concern I promised I would come back to. It is that the bill does not just apply to what we would think it would, such as having access to cabinet ministers and the like, because that is what Canadians call cash for access. Somehow it has to cover opposition leaders and their parties as well, which is a bit odd. The thing that worries me is these people are going to have their names on an easily accessible website. Everyone who would come to a Liberal fundraising event would be known, and it would be the same for a Conservative or an NDP fundraising event in similar circumstances.

Let us say a public servant in the current government attended a Conservative fundraising event, or an individual who had aspirations to be appointed to a federal agency or something of that sort attended. It is their public right, their right as Canadians, whether public servants or otherwise, to attend a fundraising event for the Conservative Party, an opposition party.

Somebody in the Liberal Party or apparatchiks in the government would be able to cross-reference the list of donors, the list of people who gave money to the Conservatives, and then know who was not a supporter of the government of the day. What would happen then? What they would be able to find out by cross-referencing is people who will not be appointed to a federal agency because they are the wrong political stripe. A public servant might suddenly see that their best new opportunity is in Iqaluit, because that is where they might send people who are outed as donors to another party.

As the Liberals say, and they may say, that is not something we would do. We are not like that.

However, we are making this law for a long, long time until it is changed, so it is not an excuse to say, “We would not do that”, because in the hands of another, less generous party, that could happen. Therefore I would ask, as this gets to committee, that we consider that possibility.

Frankly, are there privacy concerns with this? In the zeal to have transparency and actually not do anything about cash for access, but let everybody know who comes to these events, are there issues of privacy? I would ask the Privacy Commissioner to opine on that.

Yes, indeed, we all have a right to attend political events. The lifeblood of our democracy is those people who wish to get involved, and we salute those who participate, but it seems there may be a high price to pay, both in the loss of an individual's privacy as well as the potential impact on their career aspirations as a consequence of doing so. I think that is something that at least is worth consideration.

I want to suggest that the bill is deeply flawed. It is flawed in principle and it is flawed in drafting. It does not do what Canadians expected it to do. It ignores committee recommendations on ethics that could have made a difference. Instead it is providing more information, perhaps to the detriment of individual Canadians, so I ask the government to be open to suggestions at committee.

It is not often that suggestions that come from opposition parties are accepted, but perhaps this is an exception. I would welcome the opportunity to have a serious conversation about what the Liberals are trying to do.

Cash for access will continue. We can still buy access to the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers if we have the money to pay. In press releases and commentary, the Minister of Democratic Institutions told reporters that what happens at the cabinet table is not influenced by what happens at fundraising events. That is a direct quote. Even if that is true for this government, which I severely doubt, a lot of Canadians do not expect it to be true. They think that there is an appearance of problems here, and as the Prime Minister himself argued, that ought not to be the case, but it is the case and it will continue to be the case. I ask the Liberals what they think they are achieving by such a hollow exercise.

Having these events in private homes where the media are not required to come to tell us who is there and what they are doing and what they are talking about is just ridiculous. It is just a complete travesty. It will not achieve what Canadians expected would happen here. We all expressed outrage at these cash-for-access events. We all expected meaningful reform, and this is what we were given. It is not even consistent with the open and accountable government document that the Prime Minister talked about.

We will have to support the bill so we can get it to committee. Then let us fix it. Let us roll up our sleeves and make it better for Canadians.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

To hear him say it, one would believe that what happened in Parliament was terrible, and that no one else has ever paid to attend an event. It is funny, because the New Democrats see themselves as political angels. They have never done anything wrong.

It is funny, because today is close to a special anniversary for the provincial NDP leader. I have to read this:

“Andrea Horwath to host cash-for-access fundraiser next month”. It is almost a year and a week ago. What was the price? It was $10,000 per ticket.

I know they love to mix Queen's Park and the B.C. Liberals and whatnot. They talk about cash for access, but their own leader, the member for Outremont, said that even he had a cash-for-access event at $300 a head. To say that the NDP is holier than thou is just a little rich.

We are trying to bring a little more transparency to these events. Would he not agree that transparency in these events contributes and benefits each party across the aisle?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I appreciate what the member said, if I understood it. I thought we were here to talk about a bill that is before Parliament about improving the electoral finance laws.

I cannot comment on Andrea Horwath. I can comment I suppose, if he wants to talk about provinces, on the B.C. Liberals. They have $10 million sitting in the bank and an infinite number of dollars that companies and individuals provide to that party. If that is the solution he thinks is relevant, I suppose we can go back to the wild west, as it is called.

I do not want to go there. I want to go to a place where we address the concerns of Canadians. Do I think transparency is going to make much difference? Not really. Do I think Canadians expected a bill like this to address the cash-for-access scandals over the last few years? I do not think they would have expected this. I think they would have expected something a little more meaningful.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my business to tell the NDP House leader his business, but I just wanted to put this thought in his head. The bill is going to go to committee whether his party votes in favour of it or not. I am going to guess that if the bill is not amended at third reading in a manner he finds acceptable, they are probably going to vote against it at third reading, so I would just encourage him to think about the possibility of voting against it at second reading. He will get his chance at committee to make the suggestions he wants to make and to tear it apart anyway.

That is just a thought to put in his head.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wisdom of the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who has been here much longer than I have. He is a valuable member of the House for sure, and that is a strategic question that we will certainly consider.

I still want this place to work. I still believe that committees can make a difference in legislation. The principle of electoral finance reform, which is what second reading is about, is one I hope we all agree on, but the devil is in the details, always, which is where the problems lie.

I think the bill could be fixed. It could be expanded. Perhaps we could, for example, put into the bill the very requirements that were in the open and accountable government document. We could apply the conflict of interest language to political fundraisers and maybe do what the Prime Minister asked of the minister of democratic institutions, which was to make sure it is only in publicly available spaces.

I am simply saying there are things we could do to make this bill less of a joke than it is. I would like to get it to committee so we can try.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria put himself forward as something of an expert in conflict of interest processes and the way we should conduct ourselves as members.

I want to ask him a hypothetical question. Conflict of interest guidelines say that we must fulfill public duties with honesty, uphold the highest standards to avoid real or apparent conflict of interest, and arrange our private affairs in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny. Would a member of Parliament who has sworn allegiance to Canada but who testifies against Canada, who is paid by a foreign corporation and never reveals how much he or she was paid by the foreign corporation, present any conflict of interest issues that the hon. member thinks a member of Parliament should consider before taking those steps to testify against his own government?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but I do not understand its relevance to electoral finance reform, so I do not know that I will answer that question.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of time, it has always been the party in power that tends to raise the most money, because the owners of large corporations find it worthwhile to invest to try to get access to the government and therefore win contracts.

Should we not try to learn from the mistakes of certain provinces? Quebec, for instance, had a scandal involving political party financing, and that province had to reflect on other ways to solve this problem.

Would we not do well to learn from that and clean up our own house, once and for all, so that it is not always the party in power that stands to gain the most form political fundraising?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so obviously true that the party in power is the one that will collect the most money in these circumstances. I wonder why a bill that is designed to apply to both opposition and government parties alike seems to treat them in exactly the same way. It seems kind of nonsensical. I do not understand, given that reality, why we would not address the issue at hand head on.

The issue we thought we were addressing was preferential access to prime ministers and ministers, who would have a disproportionate impact on business and other interests because they could make decisions to favour them. That is not the case in our system with opposition parties. Treating them alike and pretending that it is all the same is essentially a smoke screen.

I thank the member for that observation.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague figure that people at party conventions would be paying a certain amount of money to attend an event with the party leader? That came up in a question from a Liberal MP.

It would not bother me to know that the Conservative Party organized a meet-and-greet with the leader at its convention. Most of the people paying to attend are already interested members.

Can we make a distinction, then, between events where business people are trying to get access to a minister or the Prime Minister to advance their interests and party conventions where members who have been involved for decades decide to pay extra to be at an event with the party leader?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, that is an excellent observation. It is the kind of distinction we can focus on at committee when we seek to improve the bill.

There absolutely is a difference, and a clear one, between long-standing party members at a convention being recognized and the like and people who are simply at events in order to influence the government of the day, ministers, and the prime minister as well.

The committee will provide an opportunity to draw bright distinctions between those situations and try to make it better for Canadians.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, political financing, which we feel will help to raise the bar that we, as parliamentarians, are held to when it comes to the important issue of openness and accountability in political fundraising.

We know Canadians value our democracy. While Canada already has one of the strictest electoral finance systems in the world, we recognize we can do even more to increase the transparency in the way that political parties finance. That is why Bill C-50 would contribute to enhance trust in our democratic institutions by providing Canadians with more information than ever before.

Canadians will know who is going to fundraisers, when they are going to be held, and the amount required to attend. Canadians deserve to know that their elected representatives are playing fair. Bill C-50 would not only help achieve this goal by implementing new rules to make political financing even more open and transparent, but it would also allow those across our country to know more about how the political fundraising that the parties conduct is undertaken so they can continue to have confidence in our important and valued democratic process. It will also allow them to make up their minds about who they will vote for in elections and how they can be better informed for that purpose.

As my hon. colleagues know, key regulations, such as spending limits, a cap on annual donations, and a ban on corporate and union donations, are already in place when it comes to political financing in Canada. At the national level, all Canadian citizens and permanent residents have the ability to contribute up to a maximum of, this year, $1,550 annually to the registered party and then of course an equivalent amount to the riding association for the local candidate.

Additionally, contributions to a federal political party are reported to elections Canada and donations of over $200 are already published online with the information, including the contributor's name and address.

Canadians elected our government on a promise of openness and transparency. Canadians have a right to know even more than they do now when it comes to political fundraising. It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to serve those we represent. By taking action to make our political fundraising system more open and transparent, we are raising the bar on an informed choice in our political process.

Our government understands that many actions, such as attending a fundraising event, play a very important role in our democratic expression. Choosing to financially support a political party is not only a recognized right, protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also accounts for a valuable form of civic engagement. As a society that values democratic engagement, we must continue to uphold and protect this essential right.

Furthermore, our government knows that Canada's current political party system plays an important part in our democracy. It has contributed to our status as a model for many other democracies around the world, it is a key attribute of our democratic process, and it allows like-minded Canadians from all across the country, from diverse regions, social classes, religions, ethnic groups, and gender identities, to work together on a common purpose.

With this in mind, we must remember that political parties require funding to operate. We must continue to respect the right of all Canadians to choose how to financially support the party of their choice, while ensuring we are providing Canadians with open and transparent information about how this is done. This means taking significant steps to ensure that those across the country can view and understand how political fundraising works and plays a role in our democratic process.

Canadians will be able to determine, as a result of this law, when a political fundraiser is happening, who attended the fundraiser, and how much a person contributed or paid to get into it. Under the proposed measures of Bill C-50, all political parties that currently have seats in the House of Commons will have 30 days to report to Elections Canada the names and addresses of those who attend any fundraiser covered by the legislation.

Who is covered? Any fundraiser attended by the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders, or party leadership contestants with a seat in the House of Commons where over $200 is required to attend will be subject to these rules. This is commensurate with our current disclosure requirement.

Furthermore, under the proposed legislation, these events will be advertised at least five days in advance, with the date, time, and location of the event. This will all be made clear on the party's website. This information, along with the names and addresses of those attending and the cost of event, will be published online.

As a former volunteer with a political party, as someone who has served as a treasurer of a provincial part, and a treasurer of a riding association, if somebody attended a political fundraising event but someone else had purchased a ticket or he or she attended as a guest, for free, the information might not appear online, whereas for someone who paid the full $200 cost, it did appear online.

This information was obscured, and this has come up in debate in the House. This legislation addresses that gap and makes the event reporting more transparent and open for Canadians so they can make a decision about whether there is some perception of undue influence.

Political parties will be responsible for ensuring this information is properly reported within the necessary time frame. If these rules are not followed, the party or candidate in question will be required to return all contributions from the event and there could also be a fine to a maximum of $1,000.

When it comes to our democracy, we know that balance is important. Under the measures brought forward by the legislation, we are successfully balancing the important charter right of democratic expression, while increasing openness and creating even more transparency in political fundraising. We are doing this to allow the electorate to make more informed decisions.

These measures will not only help strengthen and improve our democratic institutions; they will provide Canadians with more information than ever before when it comes to political fundraising events.

I believe all my hon. colleagues will see the value and importance of improving the openness and transparency of our political institutions. As a result, I encourage all members of the House to welcome the legislation so we can raise the bar when it comes to accountability for political events and to strengthen our continued democracy.

It was interesting to listen to some of the other comments. I want to talk a bit about some of the things my colleagues from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston and Victoria raised with respect to some of the objectives of the act, what was covered, and what was not.

One section in the act states:

at least one person who, in order to attend it, is required...to have made a contribution or contributions of a total amount of more than $200 to the registered party or any of its registered associations, nomination, contestants, candidates...

It is not just events where a ticket price is included. Events like an appreciation event are covered under this act. There is another opportunity to close a loophole where some parties may have held events and said if people made their donations to the party three months ago, they would not report that they attended the event. We will close the loophole to ensure people are on an even footing when they attend events as to whether and how their information is recorded and made public to Canadians.

There are some interests in the background. Again, we already have very strict limits. I do not think anyone believes that a colleague in the House is going to be unduly influenced by the low levels of donations made by the limits set forth in our existing Canada Elections Act. Donating $1,550 among donations in the tens of millions of dollars to parties is not material. It does not go to affect and influence anyone. I do not believe Canadians feel that a de minimis amount of money in the overall scheme of things will affect public officials. I believe they have confidence in them. I do not believe they felt that $1,500 donations to the Conservative Party unduly influenced the Conservative Party, or that $1,500-a-year donations to the NDP unduly influenced the NDP. I also do not believe they feel that $1,550-a-year donations to the Liberal Party unduly influenced the Liberals. These are de minimis in the grand scheme of things when compared to the overall amount that parties fundraise.

However, there have been gaps, and we have seen that with respect to certain types of donations and certain types of political participation. We would not see in the record what clearly happened. At times, this leads to a perception that something is wrong.

I remember reading about events with Dean Del Mastro, a former member of the House, who held fundraising events. The reporters on the events did not seem to understand that when certain people from the party attended these events, they did not pay the ticket price. There were concerns within the articles about there being 300 people at the event, but it only raised a certain amount of money. It cast aspersions on the event that perhaps in that instance should not have been there.

If people understand how the finance laws and the reporting work, which is quite arcane, they will understand that some people were not allowed to pay for a ticket because they had already paid the cap. This change will allow the media and Canadians to understand that when people attend fundraisers in accordance with the rules, it does not always mean people pay the same price. Some people are prohibited from paying an additional amount to attend.

Advertising in advance is important for public scrutiny. Canadians will lose confidence if they only learn about things after the fact. It provides an opportunity for shock and awe type media events and media exposure in respect of events. It is this sort of perception by the media that something inopportune is happening. This has happened for years in Canadian reporting, when in fact nothing untoward has happened. This is a totally normal practice.

Advertising publicly in advance that these events are occurring provides the opportunity for the media to understand and prepare and then report more accurately on the events.

However, of course, every time we go and try to interfere with the type of publication that we are engaging in with respect to political finance reform, we have to recall that under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, thought, belief, expression, peaceful assembly, and association. All of these are implicated in the political process. They are right there in section 2 of the charter. Of course, these can only be limited, in accordance with section 1, when they can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

We feel that we have achieved the right balance here. We are not going to require volunteers' names be disclosed or those of minors under 18 years of age. Journalists in the media will not need to be disclosed if they attend events, if the events only cost $200 or less, either at the event or including all previous donations for the right to acquire a ticket to the event. People providing hospitality and other services at the event will not have their names disclosed. This protects the freedom of association that Canadians hold so dear.

At the same time, for those donors in the over $200 up to $1,550 range, there is going to be some public openness and transparency and accountability to provide confidence that nothing untoward has happened, although generally, I think the members of this House will agree that $1,550 is also quite a low limit.

When it comes to other aspects of the political process that might be interfered with, we will note that during election campaigns, the particular rules about the timing of the promotion of the events will not apply. I think we feel that this would be unduly restrictive.

If we look at the smaller political parties that do not hold seats in this House, we see they do not necessarily have the resources to comply with all the rules in this act. Their access to influence, which could be peddled, is also quite limited. I think everyone would find that it would be fair that they should not have to comply with some of the rules about the promotion of their events, the disclosure of individual attendees, and the amounts donated, provided that they do comply with the limits, of course.

Any donation to a political party of $200 or more is going to be published, regardless of which party. It is not that Canadians do not have visibility into the electoral financing of the smaller political parties. They do, but this additional administrative burden is going to apply to those who hold seats in the House.

Then there are leadership contests. This is a subject that comes up time and time again in terms of the level of disclosure and the level of accountability in a leadership contest and how that affects the public perception of politics in Canada.

I know right now it is in the media about Mr. O'Leary and whether he appropriately financed his leadership campaign. Although they will not affect Mr. O'Leary or the people who are seeking the role of leader of the New Democratic Party, for future leadership contests, these rules would apply. These rules apply so that Canadians can have the information at their disposal within 30 days of the event to know plainly and simply who attended these events and how much they paid. Canadians themselves can come to an informed decision about whether they feel anything untoward has happened, and they can cast their vote accordingly.

I think we balanced the charter, and I think we have learned about the events of recent history. So much to do has been made about nothing, in some cases. Then, in other cases, there may be a situation where something untoward is happening, and promoting and publishing not only who has paid for tickets but also who is attending events, even if they have not paid for the tickets, would allow the opposition parties and the government party to examine exactly what has happened and if anything untoward is occurring in our political finance system.

I have already mentioned the fact that we are covering off appreciation events. I know that earlier in the debate there was some confusion about that. It seems very clear from my reading of the legislation that appreciation events are covered and that if people attend an appreciation event and their attendance is contingent on a donation that solely or in combination amounts more than $200, their names will need to be disclosed and published. I think this is appropriate.

I myself found, in connection with my role in political finance reporting as a riding association treasurer and as a treasurer of a provincial party, that those gaps exist. This act does a great job of closing those gaps, not only so that people are fully aware of what is happening and everyone is on an equal footing when it comes to their donations to a political party, but also so that in this place the opposition parties can review the lists and hold the government to account. I think that is an important feature of our democracy.

I know they like to do it almost every question period. This would provide them with a little more information. That is wonderful.

Bringing leadership and nomination campaign expenses in line with the current regime for candidates is an important aspect of the changes to the rules. Another thing that we found in the last election was that the rules associated with nomination contestants and candidates for a campaign and in the leadership contest are all a bit of a smattering and a bit of a mix, in terms of making sure that we have the same coherent information being provided across the political finance spectrum for all the ways in which Canadians are engaging in the process.

We would allow Canadians to have a better sense of what is going on. The more loopholes there are in our law, the more ways there are for people to provide donations and not have their name published, the more it seems there is something wrong with our system, and it lowers the credibility of the system. I think we have managed to close that off here.

I understand that the NDP is at least going to be supporting the bill at this stage. I am very thankful for that. It points to the fact that New Democrats feel the bill addresses something. I know they are asking for more. I look forward to hearing more from the members of the NDP, as to what they would like to see in the bill.

I look forward to hearing from the Conservatives, as well, even though they are not supporting it. They talked earlier about putting on a fig leaf, and I think we are really talking about pulling the fig leaf away. Let us lay everything out on the table. Let us see what is on the table, in terms of donations, and let Canadians make up their minds with respect to the issues that are of importance to them.

This was important to me before I entered politics, and I am glad to see that, now, as a result of the legislation that is being put forward by the minister, we are achieving on our election campaign commitment to make our electoral finance system more open and transparent. That is something that I hope earns the support of all members of the House.

With respect to advertising by political parties on websites, this will be an opportunity. This should not impose too much of an administrative burden on political parties. Most political parties, at least the ones represented in the House, have well-functioning websites that include the opportunity to host and show events. We have not heard anyone stating today that their party would not be able to comply with this aspect of the bill. From a compliance perspective, this should not put any undue cost or burden on the parties. It is something they are able to do already.

Perhaps it is not something that they are always doing, but this would provide a strict and clear standard on what needs to be done in terms of promotion of events on websites, to make sure that everyone is playing ball fairly, and that when events occur, the media know about them in advance, the public knows about them advance, and people are able to make up their own minds as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the particular type of event, its location, its costs, and what the party is trying to achieve in hosting it.

In addition to the promotion in advance, there is also an accelerated timeline for reporting the results of the event after it has already occurred. Now there would be a 30-day timeline in which the event organizers would need to provide to the parties the list of the attendees at the event, subject of course to the limits of not reporting minors, volunteers, media, and people providing support to the event; but for all the other attendees of the event, their names need to be provided, along with their addresses, to Elections Canada within 30 days of the event.

I think this is important, because it would provide timely access to information for Canadians. The lack of timeliness of the information is another way by which Canadians lose confidence or faith, or they have a perception that there might be something untoward or inappropriate happening. By accelerating the timelines for this reporting and ensuring that the reporting is done within a month, that would give confidence to Canadians that things truly are on the up and up.

I am sure when Canadians see the results of this bill come forward, if it gets passed in its current form, they will see the benefits of this public reporting. It would help them have confidence that political fundraising is not some type of evil that has to be undone. It is an important part of our political process, and it allows us to do the work we do here every day. It allows Canadians to engage in a fair and balanced way in the political system.

If it has a negative perception as a result of some of the discourse in this place, the bill allows us to overcome that.

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

Mr. Speaker, to hear the member speak about this piece of legislation, it seems that somehow there is something virtuous about this bill that the Liberals are now proposing. The reality is that the Liberals actually received a lot of public backlash and media backlash because there really was not anything wrong with fundraising in this country. What was wrong in this circumstance was that the Prime Minister broke his word and the Liberals got caught. They got caught by the media, they got caught by the public, and certainly the opposition held them to account with respect to the cash for access.

I will remind the member again what the Prime Minister wrote: that there should not be preferential access or the perception of preferential access to ministers. What is important to understand about this as well is that he talked about the limited amount of fundraising, but multiples of that limited amount can actually direct ministers, and ministers have a broad range of powers. With the stroke of a pen they can initiate millions of dollars toward a group or organization.

How does the member feel about the Prime Minister's not living up to his direction to his ministers and therefore not living up to his word? Is that not the real reason why we are in this position, dealing with this piece of legislation?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that in fact we are achieving on the goal of openness and transparency by providing timely and complete information to Canadians where they did not previously have timely and complete information, by closing down the loophole on appreciation events, which the Conservatives have already admitted they used greatly to their advantage, and to now know that those people are attending the events but not for any improper purpose. I am not trying to disparage people who engage in the democratic process through fundraising; it is an important aspect of what we do.

However, somehow through this place we have come to malign the people who host fundraisers and we have come to malign the people who attend fundraisers. These people are just trying to engage in our democratic process in a lawful way. This would clarify the law. It is a great piece of legislation, and I thank the Prime Minister and the minister for putting it forward.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again to follow up on the question from my colleague from the Conservative Party. What we had hoped this bill would do was to address the cash for access events, for access to government, to ministers, and to the Prime Minister. We are not talking about people in political parties who are going to fundraisers and participating in those events. I am disappointed that this bill does nothing there. As my colleague mentioned and as the member for Victoria mentioned, the NDP will be supporting the bill, hoping that the government will be open to what would be extensive amendments to what we see in front of us, because it does not address the access and the privilege that people would get when they pay to see ministers of the government.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the rules that would be set out in the law, there are also rules that each of the parties set for themselves in terms of what they feel is appropriate for their own ministers, whether their own ministers may choose to attend events or not. Therefore, we will see over the course of time how things play out.

With respect to the particular bill, our Prime Minister and our ministers have made themselves available to Canadians for free at public town halls and consultations across this country in a way that we have not seen in generations. It has been fantastic. I know that in my riding of St. John's East we have had town halls on defence, on electoral reform, on the environment, on innovation science and economic development, and on science. They have provided opportunities to Canadians of any walk of life, of any socio-economic class, to come out and meet the minister and be engaged in politics, have their views heard and be listened to, and have those words of Canadian citizens make their way through the consultation process in a way that certainly has not happened in the last decade.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when my friend from St. John's East mentioned that a campaign promise of the Liberals was being fulfilled in Bill C-50, I went back to look at the Liberal platform because as I recall, this was not a campaign promise. The campaign promise on electoral financing would ensure that the loophole of unlimited spending by political parties before the writ drops would be closed, and controlled spending within the writ period.

The more significant campaign promise was that 2015 would be the last election held under first past the post. We must get back to that if the Liberals do not squander a lot of what particularly younger Canadians entrusted when they cast their votes.

Bill C-50 really deals with an almost microscopic issue of the importance of electoral reform and campaign finance reform. This only became an issue because of the optics of cash for access fundraising that conflicted with the Prime Minister's own words.

Bill C-50 would close that loophole, but there are many more important issues with respect to improving democracy in this country than this so-called cash for access piece. Let us be clear. Under our existing laws all donor names have to be published and donations held at $1,500. This legislation deals with the issue of private fundraising that creates the impression of elite access.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was a question there, but I will reiterate the point that this legislation would achieve the goal that my colleague just mentioned of making sure that Canadians understand what is happening at the fundraisers, where they are, who is attending, how much they cost, and they can make up their own minds. Canadians do not need to be regulated to death.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for his dedication and hard work on this file.

The new BFFs on this side of the House have been labouring mightily to fabricate concerns around these fundraisers really under two headings as I can see. First, the member for St. John's East dispensed with it quite handily, and that was the inability of funds in the amount of $1,550 to influence any reasonable member of Parliament. That could never happen of course. That leaves what must be the secondary concern, which would be what is discussed at these events, with whom, and how that might give influence to decisions down the line.

I wonder if the member took note that on Tuesday, June 6, Kady O'Malley wrote, “When you get down to it, the prospect of publicly available invite lists should have a wonderfully clarifying effect on the judgment of any minister--or ministerial staffer...in deciding which events might cross the line and create at least the perception of a conflict of interest.”

Would the member agree with her conclusion that this would mollify any concerns about undue influence of deep-pocketed donors?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously agree with that. In fact, it was the nature of what we discussed. By providing this information, Canadians will have an opportunity to see what is going on. It will also provide information to ministers and their staff to know what is appropriate and not appropriate. Canadians can make up their own minds, because Canadians do not need to be patronized. They are intelligent people, and they can look at the information and make an informed decision.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point that the real reason we are here tonight on both Bill C-24 and Bill C-50 is because of miscalculations on the part of the Prime Minister. In the first instance, he promised gender parity in cabinet, and suddenly realized he did not have it. On this piece, he is giving in to his Liberal instincts.

Why is there nothing in Bill C-50 that would address third-party financing? That is the big elephant in the room. Third-party groups have unduly influenced elections, especially the last one. Why is there nothing in Bill C-50 that would address that?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, while the member asked an interesting question, I cannot really comment as to what is not in the bill. What is in the bill is fantastic. The bill addresses loopholes that I myself had noted when I was involved as a volunteer for the political party in terms of unfair treatment of different types of political financing.

The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston thought that the bill would not close the loophole the Conservatives used to have cash for access fundraising through the back door and their appreciation events, but it does in fact close that loophole, and now Canadians will have the necessary information to make an informed decision as to whether or not influence is being bought. I think they will find that it is not.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is time we had an honest discussion of what the bill is actually about. I have heard Liberal speakers talk about chapter and detail of what it is about, and that there was no problem. I just heard from the Liberal ranks saying there was no problem to be solved. If there is no problem to be solved, why are we having a bill? The problem to be solved by the admission of the Liberal Party was a scandal called cash for access fundraising. It was hitting the news. It was making stories, and the Liberals promised to deal with the problem. The bill is said to be the response to that problem.

I thought it very telling that the member for St. John's East said there are rules that the parties set for themselves. That was a description of the bill. This is a bill where the Liberals are setting rules for themselves. This is not solving the problem of cash for access fundraisers. This is not stopping cash for access fundraisers. This is a bill that formalizes the process of cash for access fundraisers. This is a bill that legalizes cash for access fundraisers.

Some know I have been involved in political parties and campaigns for a few years, 42 to be exact. I know a thing or two about fundraising. I know a thing or two about running campaigns. Make no mistake, the bill is about formalizing and instituting a system of cash for access fundraisers. That is what it does. That is what it is all about.

It is not surprising Liberals want to, as the hon. member said, set rules for themselves about fundraising, and that this is what they are doing here. The Liberals have a long history of fundraising problems and scandals. Some of it in very recent history. I recall it was not long ago that the Minister of Justice, keep in mind the justice minister is responsible for appointing every senior judge in this country, held a fundraiser and invited lawyers. They were to be given unprecedented access, and it was even held at a major Toronto law firm.

If an individual is a lawyer and applying to become a judge, and being told to come to a fundraiser, I think the message is loud and clear. That judgeship applicant might want to show up. Not surprisingly, we have seen a raft of appointments recently that happened to coincide with the fact these people were very generous donors to the Liberal Party. Is there any doubt what was going on at that fundraiser by the Minister of Justice targeted to lawyers?

I was part of the Harper government, where as a minister for many years, I was actually, by the ethics rules we thought and by our practice, prohibited from raising money from the stakeholders in my portfolio. Prohibited. The Ethics Commissioner told us those were the rules. We could not do it, and we did not do it. Here, the Liberal Party is making it a formal practice, and having been called out on it, the solution is simple, the Liberals will pass a law, formalize it, and say this is the system. Then, when anyone says there is a problem, tell me if we have heard this in question period, we are following the rules. What rules are we following? These are rules the party is setting for themselves as the hon. member for St. John's East said. These are the rules they are going to follow.

That will be the answer, and when the Ethics Commissioner says she does not like the appearance of undue influence and cash for access, Liberals are going to say they are following the rules. They are setting up a system, and everyone who comes has to show up, be on the list, advertise it publicly, and so on, but having done all that, it is okay for Liberals to raise money from stakeholders, and sell the access of the minister's ear, so that people can whisper their requests. If they are lobbying, the minister is there if they have paid their ticket price to the Liberal Party.

That is what the bill is about, and that is why it is wholly unacceptable. It is unacceptable in a free and democratic society where we pretend that everybody has equal access, because it is not equal access. It is cash for access. Cash for access to the decision-makers who can make a difference in the success or failure of people's ventures, and we have seen that. It was not just the people who want to become judges.

The Prime Minister, we learned, went to a fundraiser or a private home, targeting a particular community. One of those at that fundraiser was somebody named Shenglin Xian. He had an interest, an application to the federal government for a bank. He made the maximum donation to the party, and got a lot of his friends to come to this fundraiser too, to make those maximum donations to the party. They all got to talk to the Prime Minister, got their pictures taken with the Prime Minister, and talked to the Prime Minister about the things in which they had a financial interest, about things from which they would profit by a decision made by the government. What happened? Not long after that fundraiser, Mr. Xian got his approval from the federal government. That is part of the scandal that led to the bill. That is part of the problem that has been solved by the bill.

Let us go back and see what happens. Is there anything in the bill that would stop the exact same thing from happening again? Is there anything that would discourage it, because that maximum donation to the party is publicly disclosed anyhow. No, this is a smoke and mirrors formalization of cash for access fundraising, a legalization and a way to say to the public, to the people in the House, to the media and to the Ethics Commissioner, “It is none of your business. We are following the rules.” The rules that parties set for themselves, as the Liberal member said, and that is what this is.

That is why this is so unacceptable. Mr. Xian was not the only one at that cash for access fundraiser. Another gentleman gave $1 million to the Trudeau Foundation, after attending an exclusive, in a private home, cash for access fundraiser. He did not give money to any other groups. He did not give money to the Manning Centre, no. He went to a fundraiser with the Prime Minister and gave money to the Trudeau Foundation, $1 million. He did not give money to anybody else. He was not having a private cash for access fundraiser with anybody else, he was having it with the Prime Minister, and the money flowed to the Trudeau Foundation.

There were other attendees at that event who acknowledged they raised government business with the Prime Minister. They said they lobbied the Prime Minister about things they cared about, interests that they had with the government. The Prime Minister even admitted it. He acknowledged that he had been lobbied at that event, and this will make it all go away because what? Can anybody point me to one provision in the bill that will stop that fundraiser and those discussions from happening? There is none. All it will do is stop the criticism of that inappropriate, unethical, virtually corrupt form of fundraising, and it is something that is happening, not to solve the problem, it is happening to solve the Liberals' fundraising problem.

Let us ask, where did this came from? Why was it that the media was suddenly interested in Liberal fundraising? No one was standing there for a long time. They had not been. It turns out the Ontario Liberals, some of whom have suddenly migrated to Ottawa, the people who used to run the Premier's office, who used to run the Liberal Party in Ontario, are now running the federal Liberal Party. What did they do when they were in Ontario? They had something that was described by Liberal insiders and Liberal cabinet ministers as a system. It was a system of cash for access fundraising, and this is how the Liberal Party of Ontario was funded. Each minister was assigned targets. If an individual was the minister of finance, somebody like Charles Sousa, the minister would sign an annual target of half a million dollars.

They were given a list of the stakeholders, the people they would be dealing with, the folks they would be making decisions about. They would be told to forget about themselves and their riding associations. Gerald Butts and Katie Telford were in the premier's office. Now they are in the Prime Minister's Office. They would be told to go out for the Liberal Party of Ontario. If a member wanted to remain a minister, he or she would have to raise half a million dollars from stakeholders and turn it over to the Liberal Party caucus. The job was to hold the fundraisers, give the access, collect the cash. That was the system.

It turns out that Eric Hoskins, the health minister, had the exact same target of half a million dollars a year. He had to hold fundraisers at long-term care homes with the Ontario Long Term Care Association and folks like that, and bring in money.

All the folks on the backbench over there think the way to be a minister is to always follow the party whip. This law is about putting in place a new system for them. That is what the Liberals did in Ontario. It is real simple. They should not worry about the whip. They are given a target and are told to bring in money. If they perform, they will get to be in cabinet. That was the system in Ontario. It became a bit of a scandal, understandably.

I know a lot of people are smiling on the Liberal benches because they think this is funny. However, it is not funny; it is corruption. It is what discredits politics in our country. When people think the worst of politics, it is what they think the country is about. It is the system of the Liberal Party, of Gerald Butts, of Katie Telford, and it is the system they are bringing here. It is the system that this bill will legalize, formalize, put in place, and keep rolling, but with much bigger stakes and much bigger dollars. People should think about that.

One of my friends across the way is heckling about one of two cases in a decade of Conservative government, where there was an issue for cash for access. Oddly, both of them happened in that very Conservative sector, the arts sector. One was with a minister, the other with a parliamentary secretary. In both cases, they attended events that they thought were just meetings with folks in the arts sector. Somebody went around the room and collected cheques. All that money was returned of their own initiative. Why? Because that was the Conservative practice: no cash for access.

Those were the only two examples in that arts sector, which was so cozy with the Conservatives. This undermines the fact that these were unsolicited funds that were returned instantly on the initiative of the Conservatives because it was wrong. The hon. member knows it is wrong and that is why he is raising it. However, he will vote for a bill that makes it legal and formal to do that kind of stuff. The hon. member who is heckling me thinks it is wrong, but will vote for a bill that formalizes it.

Should that not trouble everybody? Did Prime Minister Stephen Harper ever hold any? He avoided it by one simple mechanism: he did not hold fundraisers and did not attend fundraisers. In a decade in office, he attended one fundraiser. It was in Montreal, with over 1,000 people. It was not a cash for access intimate event in the kitchen of one of his friends who had an interest; it was one with 1,000 people. Even then he stopped it. Why? There could be no question whatsoever of unethical or corrupt conduct, the kind that would be formalized in this bill.

Let us talk more about the Ontario system.

Energy minister Bob Chiarelli was consistently turning in a quarter to a third of a million dollars a year. That was his target. He held one private dinner with one group of stakeholders in the energy sector. The premier went to it. This little private dinner in a restaurant turned up $100,000 alone. That was the Liberal cash for access system.

Dwight Duncan, a former Liberal finance minister of Ontario, has this to say about the system. He was assigned the target of a million dollars. He said, “One of the reasons I quit...I was so sick of it.” That system is what the people on the government side are proposing we support, formalize, and legalize.

John Gerretsen, the attorney general, father of the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands, said this about the Liberal system of cash for access. He said he was troubled by the conflict of interest aspects, “If a major issue comes up, and you have been funded by lobbyists on behalf of any kind of industry, you’re going to be affected by that...it’s human nature."

It is human nature to be influenced by it. Unfortunately, it is Liberal nature to do it, to always conduct cash for access fundraising. Now, they have created a system that legalizes it and formalizes it, and somehow in the whole process are pretending they are doing something virtuous.

Of course there was the exposé of what was being done in Ontario, and I credit those Liberal insiders and former ministers who exposed it, because otherwise we would not know today that they literally had a formal system. They identified stakeholders, raised the money from them, and did it. That is why it became an issue when suddenly those folks from Queen's Park came to Ottawa and the same kind of fundraising began to appear here. It had not been here under the previous government, but suddenly, there it was. The Prime Minister was holding intimate gatherings. People were making maximum donations. They were bringing along 10 or 20 of their friends. In the states they call that bundling. They were bundling to make those maximum contributions. They were discussing government business.

Is there anything in the bill that would stop that? Is there anything in the bill that would prevent lobbying at these exclusive cash for access events? No, there is not. We are formalizing and legalizing how it is done. “Come on up, pay your $1,500, and have your say with the minister, and then get your way maybe down the road.” That is what the bill is all about.

The Liberals are back in business. They are back in Ottawa. Some will remember the “Sky Shops” scandal. Some will remember the sponsorship scandal, and I could go on and on through history. It has always been there. It has always been the Liberal way.

We are going to get money based on the principles we stand for, standing for, as Conservatives do, our belief in smaller government. The NDP believes in bigger government. They think that is the solution. People support us for both those reasons. However, for the Liberal Party, there is a challenge. When they do not believe anything, how do they get money? They get money by selling access, by selling favourable decisions, by giving people what they want in exchange for cash. That, simply put, is political corruption. Anywhere I come from, that is what it is.

I am proud to be part of a political party that has avoided those things. I was very proud to be part of a government where it simply did not happen, a government where the money came in small amounts from people all across the country who simply believed in what we cared about. I never attended, held, or saw anything remotely like a cash for access fundraiser in my entire time in government as a member of Parliament on the Conservative Party side, but as soon as the government changed, the Ontario system was here.

What did they do to solve it in Ontario? They actually banned cash for access fundraisers. The Ontario Liberals acknowledged it was wrong and banned it. It was a little awkward. They went overboard and said MPs, candidates, opposition individual MPs cannot be there. It is a little excessive, but it actually solves the problem and bans it. They did not do that with the federal Liberal approach, which is to formalize it, legalize it, and set up a system.

The Liberals want to continue the practice here in Ottawa. The way they are going to continue the practice is by building bulletproof, iron-clad defences: “We addressed the problem. We passed a law. We are following the law. We are doing exactly what the law says one does if collecting cash for access.”

That is not a solution to the problem. That is an increase in the problem. That is an acceleration of the problem. That is the practice of politics the way Liberals have always done it, and the way it seems they want to do it into the future. That is unacceptable to Conservatives. That is unacceptable to Canadians.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say two things. One, we are in Ottawa, not Toronto, just to clear up the geography. Two, the sanctimony coming from the other side is a bit rich.

I just want to remind the member opposite we are hearing of this panacea, this wonderful experience of perfectness that came from the former government in terms of fundraising. There is a gentleman who lives in my riding, and the member might remember his name, Dean Del Mastro. He served time in prison for illegal fundraising as a parliamentary secretary to the former prime minister Stephen Harper.

I would also like to mention that the hon. member across the way has in fact made the argument for the bill. Does the member know who donated to the former prime minister Stephen Harper's nomination campaign in 2004? My guess is no, but under the bill we all would.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, none of what the hon. member raised had anything to do with cash for access.

The problem we are talking about, and that the bill was supposed to solve, is cash for access fundraisers. Mr. Del Mastro faced consequences for his acts. The Liberals are now going to have a structure to allow their acts. Mr. Del Mastro never promised anybody anything. He never made himself available to lobbyists. However, the Liberals will now be formally available to anybody wanting to lobby for an outcome or a decision from the government. It is all going to be there. Anybody who has an interest could pay money, all the rules for fundraisers would be followed, and it would be the law. That is what the bill would do.

It is the Liberal Party making rules for themselves to enable and allow the continuation of an essentially corrupt practice.