Blaine Calkins

[Ministerial Expenses, April 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, cabinet ministers can do what they want with their personal vanity projects, but Canadians should not have to pay for them: first-class tickets from Manila; and two days in Los Angeles, with her staff in tow. Why are Canadian taxpayers footing the bill for a first-class trip to Hollywood, just so the minister can be on an American talk show?

[Ministerial Expenses, April 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade was in Manila on November 19.

She had her seat reserved on the government Challenger to make her way back home, but instead she booked herself through LA and charged the taxpayers nearly $20,000 for a trip to Hollywood. The reason: a vanity interview. While the interview with Bill Maher was painful to watch, it turns out it was just as painful for Canadian taxpayers.

Why have Canadian taxpayers been stuck with the bill for her California dream?

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I finally get to ask a question of an hon. member in this House.

I remember what got me motivated to get into politics. I remember my wife and I making decisions for our family. We had one person stay at home to raise our children. We thought that was what was best. I remember the policies of the day of the former Chrétien and Martin governments were absolutely disastrous for my family. I was absolutely thrilled in the last 10 years, as a member of Parliament on the governing side, to bring forward many great policies that helped families in my constituency who are all telling me that they oppose what the Liberal government is doing to them, getting rid of all of these benefits that help them,

I wonder if the hon. member would reiterate just how positive the environment was for families under the former prime minister and how terrible they are now under the current Prime Minister.

[Justice, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister states that the definition of a stakeholder is an individual employed in, contacted by, or who otherwise represents corporations or organizations that have current or anticipated official dealings with ministers. The Minister of Justice had a secret and private pay-to-play fundraiser in Toronto with high-priced lawyers who have a history of lobbying the justice department.

Why did the minister contravene the Prime Minister's guideline, which is far above what the House leader is currently saying in defence of her, and why did she put the integrity of her office in so much jeopardy?

[Justice, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guidelines outline that ministers and parliamentary secretaries must avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of one at all times. The guideline 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.

Does the Minister of Justice not see that by attending a pay-to-play private event with high priced Bay Street lawyers who might be considered for a Governor in Council appointment she is actually granting preferential access?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for Canadians to trust the justice minister to do her job with all of her dodgy fundraising activities.

It has been six months, but she has not introduced a single piece of legislation. Her husband has registered to lobby her own department, and miraculously, in the budget the organization he lobbied for got $20 million. She has been caught giving access to high-priced lawyers and lobbyists.

Can the Prime Minister stop hiding behind his House leader and tell Canadians if this is the standard that he set for his own cabinet ministers?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2016]

It is hard to keep a straight face, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we learned that the Minister of Justice attended a high-priced pay-to-play fundraiser in Toronto with Bay Street lawyers. Now it seems she has outdone herself. She is headlining a $1,000-per-head fundraiser later this month. Copying the Wynne Liberals, the current government is creating a whole new scheme of paying for access to cabinet ministers.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us how many lawyers and lobbyists will be attending her latest pay-to-play Liberal fundraiser?

[Ethics, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister claimed she attended the high-priced pay-to-play fundraiser in Toronto as a regular MP. Later she said she was there as the Minister of Justice. The invitation to the event highlighted her new role and extraordinary mandate. It also told attendees this would be the minister's first private event in Toronto.

Was she there as the justice minister or as a regular MP? If she wants to be a regular MP, it is simple. All she has to do is resign as the justice minister.

[Ethics, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a partner at Torys LLP was registered to lobby the justice minister. Conveniently, the night before the pay-to-play fundraiser that his law firm was hosting, he deregistered as a lobbyist.

The justice minister was told by the Prime Minister not to target departmental stakeholders while soliciting political contributions. Would the minister explain how attending a private fundraiser with high-priced Toronto lawyers who have been registered to lobby her department is consistent with anybody's ethical code?

[International Trade, April 11th, 2016]

It goes on and says that—