Alex Nuttall

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

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

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

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

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

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

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

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

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must act with honesty and must uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced. As public office holders, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are subject to the Part I requirements of the Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders set out in Annex A, as well as the best practices for fundraising and dealing with lobbyists that are set out in Annex B. Moreover, they have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny. This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law.

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to tell a little story.

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

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

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

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

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

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 11th, 2016]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s attendance of a rally held on February 9, 2016, in support of the provincial Liberal candidate in the Whitby—Oshawa byelection: what was the total cost for the Prime Minister’s travel, security, and staffing, in relation to this event?

[Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Conservatives left a very generous surplus, which is going to be turned into a deficit today. Pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to set the context and table, in both official languages, the November “Fiscal Monitor” from the Department of Finance, and ask for unanimous consent.

[Ethics, March 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, while people across this country were working hard this winter to balance their household budgets, our Prime Minister was in the Caribbean working hard on his tan. What is worse is that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $50,000 so the Prime Minister could enjoy his sunny ways. Fifty thousand dollars is just the bill for the private jet to sit on the tarmac.

How much will the Canadian taxpayers have to shell out for the Prime Minister's private Caribbean vacation?

[Ethics, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals like to give perks to party donors. Lobbyists and Liberal bagmen have gotten the perk of a state dinner. Working Canadians are not so fortunate. While bagmen and Liberal lobbyists get to sit at the big table, we Canadians are left here with the $30 billion bill.

When will Liberals start helping all Canadians rather than just those who fatten their coffers and fill their trough?

[Manufacturing Industry, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are missing in action. The Canadian manufacturing jobs are at risk. The low dollar has put Canadians goods on sale, but the Liberals refuse to explain how they will encourage private sector investment. Yesterday, they even blocked the industry committee from asking Bombardier about a billion-dollar bailout.

What are the Liberals hiding? Is the reason the Liberals will not share their plan with Canadians that they do not have a plan to share?

[Manufacturing Industry, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies make doing business in Canada more expensive. Auto manufacturers are hurting in Ontario because our electricity rates are 30% higher than in other jurisdictions, and that is before the new Liberal carbon tax.

When will the Liberal government give manufacturers a break, rather than break manufacturers?