Debates of Feb. 9th, 2018

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the thank the member for Perth—Wellington for his speech on Bill C-50, which is a bill, as he described, that arose because of the problem around the Liberal cash for access fundraisers.

I wonder if the member could comment on what the average Canadian might want the government to do to fix this problem. If we asked a reasonable person on the street, would they feel a whole lot better about these things if they had been invited? Would they feel a whole lot better if they found out a month from now who was there rather than a year from now? These people cannot afford $1,500 to get this access.

Should the government make it illegal to have cash for access fundraisers? I wonder if the member could elaborate on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. What does the average Canadian think about the practices of the current Liberal government?

Most Canadians cannot afford a $1,500 donation to the Liberal Party, let alone a $200 donation. There should not be any preferential access to decision-makers because of how much one donates to the Liberal Party. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Open and Accountable Government document that the Liberal Party proclaimed with great fanfare clearly prohibits any preferential access, yet the Liberals have ignored it.

The average Canadian wants to see better from their decision-makers. The average Canadian wants to know that their members of Parliament, that their ministers of the crown, are not being unduly influenced by large donations to the Liberal Party of Canada simply for access to their ministers to bend their ears. Most Canadians cannot afford that opportunity, and neither should the wealthy few.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague enjoys comparing the Liberal record with the Conservative record. I appreciate the Conservative Party's newfound vision of respecting taxpayers' dollars and asking that it be paid back. However, I recall that, a few years ago, the Conservatives seemed to be on fishing trips often, and the former national defence minister, Peter MacKay, took a helicopter illegally. I do not recall him signing a cheque to the Government of Canada, but that is beside the fact.

There is one thing that the Liberals do not do. We do not appoint senators to help gratify our party coffers. I will read this quote. It says, “It soon became clear that Stephen Harper had not chosen Mike Duffy merely to speechify in the Red Chamber.” He was known to go across the country on the taxpayers' dime and fundraise for the Conservative Party. No senators currently are doing any fundraising in the chamber for the Liberal Party. I am not sure if it is quite the same thing for the Conservatives.

The member mentioned Bill C-2 and the Federal Accountability Act. We would take that one step further and ask party leaders and those obtaining the nomination to immediately publish the list of names of those who attended a fundraiser. To this date, the Conservative Party has chosen not to do that. We have proactively done this, yet the Conservative Party refuses to do that unless it becomes law.

I am just wondering where the transparency is in the Conservative Party.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to talk about appointments, so I will talk about appointments. I will talk about Madeleine Meilleur.

I had the great pleasure of sitting on the official languages committee when Madeleine Meilleur was appointed as official languages commissioner for Canada. This is a woman who paid $5,000 in donations to the Liberal Party. She directly contributed to the Prime Minister's own leadership campaign. Only weeks before she was officially nominated, she was a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. She was told she was being appointed before the official opposition and the third party were even consulted.

This is the nomination process that the current Liberal government undertook for nominating an officer of this place. She was a partisan Liberal donor and an individual who, just a year prior, was a sitting Liberal cabinet minister. This is the type of appointment we are seeing from the Liberal Party, an unfair appointment and reward for being a long-time Liberal donor and a long-time Liberal.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Liberals have some nerve talking about partisan appointments, when they themselves decided to give someone such an appointment because she could not be appointed to the Senate. She probably was angry and upset, so they gave her a consolation prize. That appointment was supposedly non-partisan. It was despicable.

My colleague mentioned the sponsorship scandal. I would like to hear his thoughts on the Liberal sponsorship scandal that happened 10 years ago and on the dangers that could play out over the next few years with respect to the legal sale of marijuana. We know there are dozens and dozens of influential, well-entrenched Liberals who have their tentacles in everything.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, for his excellent question. Indeed, I have serious concerns regarding the Liberal Party's ideas about marijuana.

I am very concerned about the direction in which the Liberal Party is going with the marijuana proposals. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is absolutely right. Is this going to be another proposal, another way in which Liberal Party members and past ministers are getting rich off the legalization of marijuana? It is a worthy question and the Liberals owe Canadians a response to that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 12, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you would likely find unanimous consent for the following. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that the recorded division on third reading of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be further deferred until the expiry of the time provided for oral questions on Tuesday, February 13, 2018.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect you would likely find unanimous support to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so that we could begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.