Candice Bergen

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 4th, 2016]

With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by by the Privy Council Office since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 4th, 2016]

With regard to the backdrops and podiums used by the government for the announcements from November 4, 2015, to present, for each backdrop purchased and for each podium purchased or rented: (a) what was the date of purchase or rental; (b) when was the tender issued for the backdrop or podium; (c) when was the contract signed; (d) when was the backdrop or podium delivered; (e) what was the cost of the backdrop or podium; (f) was there an announcement for which the backdrop or podium was used, if so, for which ones; (g) which department paid for the backdrop or podium; and (h) when were the backdrops or podiums used, broken down by event and date?

[Ethics, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not buying that. They are also not buying the government's not guilty plea on their cash for access fundraising schemes.

Canadians are expected to obey laws and follow the rules, but they know that what the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers are doing is wrong.

Canadians want to know, why do the Liberals always think they can get away with breaking the rules? Why does it always seem that there is one standard for Liberals and their friends, and then a completely higher one for everyone else?

[The Economy, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' big spending plan is failing. There has not been a single full-time job created. What is worse, the Liberals are borrowing an extra $32 billion to finance their out-of-control spending. This is not just a little deficit. This is serious, long-term debt that we are handing our children and grandchildren.

When will the Liberals stop their out-of-control spending and start listening to the concerns of Canadians who need jobs today, full-time jobs?

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it would be good for all of us to know if the minister did consult the Ethics Commissioner. Obviously, I think we know the answer to that. I would assume that had the ministers who had done these cash for access events consulted with the Ethics Commissioner, she would have given them the same advice she gave me a number of years ago. Therefore, I do not think that happened.

We certainly want to see the money given back. However, we also want to see these ethical guidelines, which we do believe in, upheld. I had asked a question on the Order Paper, and there is a precedent whereby ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their adherence to these guidelines. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not uphold those guidelines, then he should let the Ethics Commissioner do it and let us get this done.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a problem because it sets up not only the perception but the reality of cash for access. Therefore, when a minister is selling a fundraiser based on his or her portfolio and title, he or she is literally saying to people to pay an amount of money so they can come and be part of a gathering with a minister of a particular department and have access to that minister.

Because our practice was not enshrined in the Canada Elections Act, we made it part of the guidelines we followed, which ensured that when there was any kind of fundraising for our local EDA, whether a breakfast or a dinner put on, and we would have a guest there, the member would not attend as a minister but as a member of Parliament. Then we made sure that no stakeholders knowingly were there. We were very careful. However, when that slipped, John Duncan, the former minister to whom the member referred, immediately stepped down and took responsibility.

We are looking for accountability, something where the Liberals will say that they are doing the wrong thing and that they are going to reverse course.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague asked about this. It is incredibly important for us to set an example for the young women who are watching us.

Many times we see women appease men just because it is the easy thing to do. However, strong women do not appease men just because they say something. Therefore, this is my point. A number of ministers have been appointed because of their gender. The Prime Minister said that we would have an equitable female and male cabinet, but he put the majority of the female ministers in junior positions. They do not have deputy ministers, full budgets, or full departments. I would be happy to explain that further for my hon. colleagues. It is disgraceful and sad.

As a woman, if some man were to say to me, “Don't worry, sweetie, we're going to give you that job and we're paying you as much as everybody else, but you won't have the same worries or the same responsibilities, just be happy”, members do not want to hear what I would say to him.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion my party put forward today. One day a week Conservatives get a chance to bring forward a motion that we feel is important and that needs to be talked about.

Right now, Canadians are concerned about jobs and the economy. We looked at this issue and out of respect for Canadian taxpayers, this place, and each one of us as parliamentarians, my party felt it was very important to bring this motion forward today and to deal with it, once and for all. We have been having a very difficult time getting any answers during question period and all we are hearing from the government is what would be described as the doubling down defence of its position.

I will be sharing my time today, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Edmonton West. I look forward to his remarks.

There seems to be a pattern with the Liberals, which we have seen very clearly from the outset. The Liberals say what they think people want to hear. They say what they believe the general public would like to hear. They certainly say what the media would like to hear. They say what they think will sell well on Facebook and social media. They do a very good job of that. Then, in action, they do the exact opposite. We have seen that over and over again.

For me, the examples that have really jumped out are in the budget. Liberals were going to run a very small deficit. Now they are running a massive deficit, without even any discussion of going back to a balanced budget. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that position, the Liberals have said one thing and then done something completely different.

Something I believe in very strongly is this. A policy of the Liberals is to have a gender-equal cabinet. They have said one thing and done another. I find it very insulting that they have given all of the women junior positions, without the same responsibility or ability to manage their departments. I am very black and white, I admit that. I see things in life, and there is not always a lot of grey. It is black or it is white, and with the Liberals it is always grey. They say one thing and then do something completely different.

We saw it with Bill C-22, which would apparently provide oversight for CSIS. The Liberals made a big show about providing this oversight, but, again, this group has no ability to oversee CSIS and the Prime Minister whitewashes all of the reports. It is the typical Liberal way of saying one thing and then doing something completely different. That is exactly what is before us today with respect to the Liberals' approach to ethics and cash for access at which they have been very good.

Let us talk about what happened.

This started very early on last year when we noticed that the Minister of Justice was having big fundraisers in Toronto with lawyers. We immediately said that there must be some mistake, that she must not have realized that it was a contravention of the code of ethics that the Prime Minister himself had set out.

Those of us of this side who were in government knew that because as soon as ministers were sworn in, we were immediately told by the prime minister what he expected of us. He gave us guidelines with respect to avoiding conflicts of interest and told not to raise money with lobbyists or our stakeholders. He expected us to follow those guidelines.

The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, was a man of principle, a man of character, a man who, when he said something, we knew he would do it. No one ever questioned his word. When he said he wanted his cabinet to avoid conflict of interest, even the appearance of a conflict of interest, he meant it. We knew what that meant and we followed it. We were not raising money off the backs of our stakeholders. I will give an example.

When I was minister of state for social development, my portfolio included issues to do with people with disabilities. I was going to Newfoundland to deal with a housing agreement related to my housing portfolio. At the same time, lo and behold, there was going to be a fundraiser. It was not for the Conservative Party or any political party. It was for a wonderful cause, helping people with spinal cord injuries. I was asked to attend that fundraiser as minister of state for social development.

However, I knew the guidelines that the prime minister had set out. I knew how important it was that we follow those guidelines and stay away from even the appearance of not following them. Therefore, I did what most of my colleagues did during our time in government. We wrote to the Ethics Commissioner and asked for her guidance. She gives soft guidance and hard guidance.

Here is what her office told me. In its letter, it said, “in light of the above, I advise that the Minister not speak at the event in her personal capacity since the association is a stakeholder of her department. As I also mentioned, in the examination report for Minister Glover”, and I will pause here because members may recall that Ms. Glover was a former minister in our former government. She errantly started to do a fundraiser with some stakeholders. It came to light and she immediately cancelled it, returned the money, and got an opinion from the Ethics Commissioner. That is called ethics.

I will go back to what the office of the Ethics Commissioner said, “the commissioner indicated that it is inappropriate for stakeholders of Minister Glover's department to be invited to make donations in order to attend a fundraiser at which the minister was also present.” These are not my words. These are the words of the office of the conflict of interest commissioner, saying that cash for access was inappropriate. That was her advice.

The letter went on to say, “I realize that the Spinal Cord Injury Association event is not a political one; however, they are still a stakeholder of the Minister's that received funding from her department”.

The advice was not to attend, so I did not attend. I was extremely disappointed. It would have been a real joy and a privilege to attend. I am going to repeat a quote that it is important: “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do.” That seems to be where there is a huge lapse in judgment by the Liberals.

I will bring us right back to the motion we presented to the House. This is not about what is legal in terms of what Elections Canada says. Of course the Liberals can take donations from every lawyer, every lobbyist, every mining executive. They can take $1,525 from every one of them and they will not break the law. Congratulations, that is what it means to be a Liberal.

On this side of the House, we are not talking about the Liberal absolute lowest standard, just trying to reach the lowest bar ever. Have the Liberals not changed at all? How about the higher bar they set for themselves? I will read about that higher bar:

General Principles

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.

...no preferential access to government...

...no singling out, or appearance of singling out, of individuals or organizations as targets of political fundraising because they have official dealings with Ministers...or their staff or departments.

It is in black and white. This nonsense that the Liberals keep spewing that it is Elections Canada is absolutely ridiculous. I am embarrassed for them. The only thing I will say is that this is sad for democracy and sad for accountability. Frankly they can keep doing it because Canadians will see through it. Canadians are not dumb. They were fooled by Liberals once. They will not be fooled again with this kind of typical sponsorship entitlement where the Liberals will keep saying one thing, do something opposite and get away with it. It is not going to work.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that once the connection is made that special access has influenced a government decision, that is where the RCMP will be involved. We have seen the Liberals do that before, whether in the sponsorship scandal or other ones. We are trying to advise the government not to go down the same road it has gone before. Instead of heeding our good advice and their own advice, the Liberals are doubling down on the wrong policy with regard to ministerial ethics.

My hon. colleague started to talk a little about the Prime Minister's mandate letters. I have in my hand the annex B to the Prime Minister's guidelines, “Open and Accountable Government”. It states, “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access”.

Does my hon. colleague, in all honesty and in his genuine opinion, believe that having a minister of finance meet someone who is a stakeholder of his department for a cost of $1,500 not have the appearance of preferential contact? If it does not, then what would?

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask if I could reserve the right to look at this further and bring some comments back at a later date.