Garnett Genuis

[Turkey, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long-standing relationship with Turkey, but as happens sometimes with relationships, we are now not as compatible as we used to be.

Turkey's government systematically violates the rights of its own people, ignores basic democratic norms, and has undermined international peace and security.

Irregularities plagued the last Turkish election and the recent referendum, a referendum that effectively put all power into one person's hands. Minorities have long-standing grievances, and their situation is getting worse. Turkey's decision to target Kurdish fighters who are themselves engaged against Daesh has negatively impacted our security. As well, is Russia really just a friend? I am beginning to wonder.

This is a clear low point in our relationship, but I still believe Turkey can change. It is time for Turkey to released imprisoned opposition politicians, restore genuine democracy, address electoral irregularities, recognize the full rights of minority communities, open the Turkish-Armenian border, recognize past acts of genocide, and restart the peace process.

Turkey, it is not me: it is you. If Turkey does not change, then western policy toward it will have to. Otherwise it will simply become somebody that we used to know.

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite rich to hear the government attest its good intentions of how interested it is in following through on the Liberal platform.

How about the Liberals balance the budget four years into their mandate, as they promised? That would be something that is very important to Canadians. There are so many platform commitments that Liberals are completely ignoring.

I want to ask my friend a specific question about the role of parliamentary secretaries on committee. The government has said it was going to take parliamentary secretaries off committees, and now, it is trying to put them back on, not in place of a Liberal member but actually to effectively increase the number of government members present on committees.

This is a real concern for me, because we have seen cases of the government appearing not to want to have members of the opposition present at in camera discussions if those members are not formally members of the committee. This opens the door for the government to effectively exclude all other members of Parliament from being at in camera discussions, except the ones who are members of the committee or parliamentary secretaries. It is a way for the government to grow its contingent on committees while leaving parliamentary secretaries involved.

I wonder if the member could comment on how it strengthens committees if the government has through this—I want to say “back door”, but it is actually pretty explicit what it is doing—tried to increase its representation on committees.

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the government House leader.

First, Bill C-49 is a wide-ranging transportation modernization act, so called. Bill C-51 is a very wide-ranging Criminal Code change. I wonder if the government House leader thinks either, or both, of these constitutes improper uses of omnibus legislation.

Second, I want to ask about the powers given to parliamentary secretaries because now, the way the Standing Order change is set up, a committee could theoretically bar members of Parliament who are not members of the committee from attending in camera meetings. That would mean they would have additional members of the government who are parliamentary secretaries who are able to remain in the room, but they would have other members of Parliament who might be interested in the discussion who cannot be in the room. Does the government House leader see a problem with that? Would the government House leader agree that any member of Parliament who wants to listen in to an in camera discussion if he or she is an elected member of Parliament, regardless of whether the member is a parliamentary secretary, should be able to do so?

[Transportation Modernization Act, June 15th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we are asking why the government is bringing in closure after such a short debate on such a long bill, a bill that the minister just said in his response is quite complex, and basically his response is that it is a really good bill and the government really likes it.

I hope the minister thinks it is a good bill, because he proposed it. That is his job, to propose good legislation. However, it is also our job to debate that legislation, to drill into it, and to have time to challenge it.

If the House just rubber-stamped every bill that the minister thought was a good bill, there would not be much point in the House of Commons. Since I believe there is a point in the House of Commons, could the minister explain, aside from just telling us how he likes his own bill, why he is shutting down debate after such little discussion and examination here in the House of Commons?

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is supposed to address these issues but, frankly, it contains loopholes we could drive an official languages commissioner through. There are gaps in it with respect to what is still allowed.

Fundamentally, the bill is about reporting, not stopping the practice of people paying money for access, and we object to that. We object to the fact that someone who is involved in lobbying the government can pay $1,500 to get preferential access to the person he or she is lobbying. The bill has some mechanisms for the disclosure of that, but it continues to fully allow that practice to take place.

Instead of proceeding in the direction the Liberals have proposed, we are asking them to align themselves with the practice under the previous Conservative government, and also to look deeper into these questions of what a just approach to this issue looks like, aside from the rules. What is just and fair vis-à-vis the common good in giving people equal access to government. We have not seen that under the Liberal government. We have not seen a proper set of rules, nor alignment with rules nor the kind of disposition and character we would expect to align with the kind of decision-making we want to see in our country.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point in general about the obvious reality that ministers have a different role from members of Parliament. Ministers are part of the government. They are running departments and making policy decisions in a way that we as members of the legislature are not. We are here to debate legislation, propose changes to it, and vote on it, but also to hold the government to account for the decisions it makes with respect to specific files.

The point my friend makes as well is that the government in this argument is always trying to muddy the waters a bit. Rather than responding to the issues of cash-for-access fundraising, it is trying to insert confusion by saying that another event might have been similar, which was probably actually different, or looking at things that are far removed from reality, trying to insert confusion into the discussion.

Instead of trying to provide clarity and answers to questions from its perspective, because it will have a different perspective, the government is trying to insert confusion in to the debate. It is like smudging dirt on the windows so we cannot see what the details are. I think the Liberals hope Canadians will give up paying attention because it is confusing, it is kind of a pox on all their houses, or whatever the case may be.

We need to search for that clarity in this debate and ask what has happened, what has the government done, and why are those things inappropriate. As I explained in my speech, quite directly and specifically, what the government has done is completely different from practices under the previous Conservative government.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it entertaining listening to my friend, the member for Spadina—Fort York. I will have to say his understanding of political financing in this country is about as good as his understanding of political philosophy. He would do well to actually listen to what I said earlier. Of course, I never, at any point in my speech, advocated the abolition of rules or said that there is not a place for moral rules alongside a broader framework of virtue ethics. It is interesting that he always refers to Ayn Rand. Maybe he is more familiar with those texts than I am. However, Ayn Rand was not an advocate of virtue ethics. I think he should know that. If he does not, maybe he should focus his questions in a different direction.

He said a lot about things that happened in the Toronto port authority, apparently. He repeatedly asserted the word “apparently”, “Apparently, you just had to pay this money and you got on the port authority.” I do not really think a lot of the assertions of that member are necessarily worth dignifying with a response. I would rather we talk not about his constructed vision of “apparently”, but rather about what we know happened.

I spoke in my speech about what we know happened under the Conservative government. We had one fundraiser where it was $50 a person. It was done by mistake, without the minister's prior knowledge, all of the money was refunded, and there was proactive engagement with the Ethics Commissioner.

With the present government, we have repeated $1,500 cash-for-access fundraisers. There has been no recognition of how inappropriate that is, no apology, and no pullback from that. The government is proudly standing up to defend it and is now trying to enshrine cash-for-access in the legislation. That is not an “apparently”. That is something we know happened. Those are events that are on the record. The government, frankly, should be ashamed of them and it should be reversing course, not trying to justify them.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

It is really interesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is a member opposite who always shouts “Ayn Rand” at me when I talk about virtue ethics, which shows how philosophically illiterate he is that he does not understand the difference between Ayn Rand and virtue ethics. I look forward to getting into that further with the member during questions and comments.

A purely rule-based morality does not give us an adequate account of the basis for understanding moral competency. In other words, we might have the rules but we have people who are failing to live up to the rules. How do we explain the fact that some people have a greater ability to live up to those rules than others?

As I introduce some possible criticisms of a narrowly rules-based approach to morality, we need to understand that the Liberal government is not even able to follow the rules that are in front of it. This is an issue of not just a failure to align with deeper principles of ethics and morality, but a breaking of clear rules as they are laid out. That is often a product of the narrowing of questions of ethics to rules. Without a broader account of moral motivation and moral competency and where it comes from, we often see a loss of even that motivating force to follow the rules.

People have complained about cash for access, so with this legislation the government is going to change some of the rules. It does not really address the fundamental problem but it also is fundamentally missing the real problem, which is not a matter of the rules but a matter of the decisions that the government has made and a lack of ethical formation around what it ought and ought not to be doing when it comes to how it acts towards the public.

The alternative is an emphasis on virtue-based morality. Virtue-based morality or ethics highlight the importance of qualities of character. Rather than focus exclusively on narrowing sets of harder cases, one comes to a greater understanding of ethics and morality by seeking to develop particular virtues.

Acting out those virtues in different situations, intellectual as well as moral virtues, helps one to understand and know what to do in different challenging situations. This is an ancient tradition that reaches back to Aristotle and likely before, but it has had a great deal of resonance all the way up to and through modern moral philosophy. Mill's approach to this is very good as well.

Aristotle identified four cardinal virtues: prudence, courage, justice, and temperance. What is at issue here fundamentally with cash for access is not just a transgression of the rules but it is a violation of fundamental principles of justice. It is a principle of national justice that all people should have a fair and equal opportunity to influence decisions and to see decisions made that reflect notions of the common good, that reflect common interests, common values, and the common good.

When some people, because of privileged access, because of their political affiliation, because of their willingness to give money to a political party, have a preferential ability to access the government and influence government policy decision-making, then that is clearly an offence against justice. I am not defining that in a purely legal context but in a context of justice as a virtue, justice as what should be a universal value.

More than trying to find ways to change rules over and over again to tighten the screw, the Liberals need to reflect on what the objective should be, which is a society, government ministers, a government, that reflects these principles of justice. They should endeavour in their fundraising activities, as well as in all of their activities, to ensure that people have the equal ability to provide input on policies that marshal towards the common good.

Virtue is important. It is not just about a set of rules, but it is about the tone and how we shape our actions and how we make decisions. This is part of the problem with the bill. It does not address many of the fundamental issues. I would say this as well outside of the bill and outside of the specific context that we are discussing this in, because we are going to have these kinds of discussions about corruption, ethics, ethical fundraising, probably over and over again at least for the immediately foreseeable future. We need to take a step back from saying, “What are the rules?” and we need to ask what kind of a country we want to be in and what kind of conduct we expect from our ministers even when perhaps the rules are not there.

Again, the rules are clear in this case, but even when they are not clear, what kind of conduct would reasonable people, thinking from a framework that emphasizes justice, seek to see acted out?

One of the other issues I want to bring up because it has been discussed in this debate is the issue of access to the Prime Minister. Repeatedly we are hearing in questions and comments from members of the government that they have the most accessible Prime Minister in human history and that they know of people who have met him at events in their ridings. Let me say first of all, it is not at all true that any Canadian who wants to spend time with the Prime Minister can get that access. That is ridiculous to even suggest. I invite anyone watching this speech who thinks it is that easy to call the Prime Minister's Office and seek to set up a meeting.

The point is that there are different kinds of access. There can be a big public town hall in which many people come and some have an opportunity to ask questions, but that is very different from having a small, intimate cocktail reception where a small number of people have the privileged opportunity to have a detailed discussion with the Prime Minister or with a minister about the issues. Those are qualitatively, fundamentally different kinds of access. It is not the same being at a $1,500 private fundraiser with the Prime Minister as being able to ask one question in a public setting at a town hall. Those are fundamentally different kinds of access.

On the point of access, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to invite the Prime Minister, if he wants to be accessible, to come and spend more time in my constituency. I am sure the local Liberal Party association would appreciate it as well, but I would be happy to take him on a tour of our industrial heartland. Without anyone paying $1,500, he can actually meet the workers in the energy sector that he has talked about phasing out, not the workers but the energy sector itself. He could then understand the importance in my riding of the downstream part of the energy sector, the jobs it creates, and the spinoff opportunities that are there and available for work right across the country.

So many of the products we use come from the energy sector. When we think of energy and oil sands development, most people think of driving cars and flying in airplanes, things that we all do, but they do not think of the fact that plastics, election signs, for example, come from petroleum products. There are so many things that we use on a day-to-day basis that have their basis in energy-related manufacturing, much of which happens in my riding.

I said in questions and comments that Vegreville is fairly close to my riding, so if the Prime Minister wants to be accessible to people who are losing their jobs and to a community that is going to be fundamentally damaged as a result of a decision of the government's former and present immigration ministers, then he could come to Vegreville and actually meet the people who are impacted.

I suspect that will not happen. If the Prime Minister wants to come to my riding this summer, I would be happy to make the arrangements. However, the reality of access is that if people are wealthy and well-connected Liberal Party donors, they are going to have access to the Prime Minister that the workers in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the people in my colleague's riding in nearby Vegreville who are losing work are not going to have. Even if there were some big round-table event, even if people are able to send a tweet and hope it is seen by the Prime Minister, they are not going to have qualitatively the same kind of access as someone who is paying for it.

Canadians are frustrated by this and the bill simply does not at all address the issues that are there.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this important debate. We are debating Bill C-50, a government bill, which in my judgment aims to whitewash the government's record when it comes to what we have been calling cash-for-access fundraising, and to put in place a system that sort of regularizes and normalizes this process.

Obviously we in the opposition are very concerned about that. We are very opposed to the government's record on cash-for-access fundraising and the continuing inclination that it has to do this. I am proud of our team for repeatedly raising this in question period and for helping to drive the public discussion on it. The public has responded with significant concerns, which is why we now see this legislative effort on the part of the government to whitewash its record.

The idea of cash for access is quite simple to understand. It is the idea that people who do business with the government or who have specific interest in lobbying the government would pay to attend a party fundraiser in order to gain access to a minister or the prime minister, whom they are directly involved in lobbying.

It is important that we make clear distinctions here. Fundraising is a part of our political process, but in principle the expectation is that people donate to political parties or political candidates because they believe in what those parties or candidates stand for. They wish to support the activities of those parties or those candidates, and they are doing so out of conviction aligned with the objectives of the party, not out of a calculation of personal interest that involves their private lobbying activities and involves their getting access to a minister or a prime minister, so that they can lobby with the implication that they are going to have a greater influence than a member of the public would.

When Conservatives were in government, we did fundraise. We had ministers involved in fundraising, but we were very clear about the fact that ministers should not have fundraisers that include those who are directly involved in lobbying them. That was a distinction that we made, and we were consistent. There was one case, and I want to actually talk about this case because I think it is quite revealing. There was one case in which there was a problem with a Conservative fundraiser. I will read some of the article. This is from CBC, published on January 18, 2014. It involved Shelley Glover, the then-heritage minister. Here is what happened:

The federal Heritage Minister attended an event in her Saint Boniface riding on Thursday evening.

But when she got there, she learned that many of the attendees were members of Winnipeg's arts community, who have dealt with her department.

Everyone at the event made a $50 donation to attend, and one person made a $500 donation.

The problem is, under federal conflict of interest rules, cabinet ministers cannot solicit donations from anyone who has asked for money or who may ask for money from her department.

In a statement released late Friday, Mike Storeshaw, Glover's director of communications, said the minister wasn't personally involved in organizing the event.

Storeshaw said Glover has refunded the money and has written the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

He said she's instructed her electoral district association which organized the fundraiser not to hold similar events.

Here is what happened. Accidentally, somebody else organized a fundraiser for the then-heritage minister in which there ended up being members of the arts community who had lobbied her department. It was $50 to get in, and immediately the minister acknowledged the problem and refunded every single dollar. These were $50 donations. This is the one time that this happened, and immediately the error was recognized and the money was refunded.

Contrast that with the Liberal Party approach: consistent $1,500 events with people who are involved in lobbying the government, and no apologies, no refund. In fact there is consistent defence of those activities.

If we compare the record when it comes to the nature of the fundraising activities undertaken under the previous government and under the current government, there really is no comparison. In 10 years, there was one case where a mistake was made. The minister was not involved in organizing the event, and the money was refunded. It was a $50 price of admission. With the Liberal government, there are consistently $1,500 events, where people are buying access to the Prime Minister and to the ministers.

What is striking is that these are always defended. It is not a matter of something happening and people saying they recognize that this should not have happened, they will pay the money back, and they will not do it again. No, these things are being defended. That is what cash for access is, that is what the government is trying to do, and Conservatives take the position that it is not acceptable. The government should go back to something that existed under the Conservatives, which was a real clarity in the guidelines. Yes, parties can fundraise. Yes, ministers and prime ministers can attend fundraising events for which people pay to attend, but those people cannot be lobbyists or people who receive money from the government, who are paying for access to a minister whom they directly lobby. That is a very clear and easy distinction to make, and it is not one being made by this legislation.

Interestingly, this legislation completely excludes, even from reporting, events where the cost is less than $200. That would completely cut out the one event under the Conservative government, about which members of the then opposition were absolutely apoplectic and called it the end of the world as we know it.

Having explained the context, what cash for access is all about, I want to delve a little into what I think is an underlying philosophical problem with how we often approach these questions of ethics in politics. We are talking about the questions of corruption, ethics, and morality in politics. Very often we approach these discussions from the assumption of what I would call a sort of rule-based moral framework, the idea that we have to define rules that deal with every possible contingency and that is the solution, that it comes down to the rules. This bill, purportedly, was introduced because people were upset about what the Liberals did, so they have to twist and tighten the rules a bit.

This comes out of a rule-based assumption about the way morality works, and I want to posit that there is a better alternative. I think that generally a virtue-based framework for thinking about ethics is a better one and would give us the tool kit we need to effectively address some of these issues. I will provide some definition and context for this.

This idea of rule-based morality is most often associated with the enlightenment philosophical project, which is the idea that, although we recognize that we may have certain aspects of ethics and morality that are part of our culture that may come from different kinds of texts and authority, actually we need to come up with a way to codify and specifically rationalize in a narrow sense of pure reason, disconnected from authority or sentiment, come up with the basis for morality and the rules we have. This was the precursor of various moral philosophers who came out of that period, who were trying to define these very specific, narrowly reason-based concepts of moral. The big debate one will often encounter in philosophical discussions that come out of this tradition is a debate between a utilitarian school, which is all about adding up the impacts on people, and a more deontological approach to ethics or morality, which says that it is more about certain lines that we cannot cross and things we cannot do, explained in whatever way. It is not about just adding up to good or bad effects, but saying there are certain things one ought never do or ought to do in general.

In any event, these distinctions all exist within a larger framework, which is that basically it is all about the rules. Through that discussion, finer and finer distinctions are made, asking what one philosophical lens tells us about a situation. Very often, for those who have studied philosophy, we get into what are often called hard cases, the frequent discussion of a narrowing set of hard cases. It is the idea that if we do not have a clear rule to answer a hard case, then we have to invent new rules that help us explain it. One of the classic ways in which these are adjudicated are so-called trolley problems. If there is a trolley coming down a hill that could go on one of two tracks and we have to decide whether to flip the switch, knowing it would impact different people depending on where it goes, how do we make that decision, depending on the situation?

Through all of this, it is this idea that the sum total of ethical and moral conduct can and should be defined in rule form, and it can be done by anyone looking at the details in a purely rational sense without reference to sentiment or authority and then following the rules, as defined.

There are a number of problems that I think are evident with a purely rule-based approach to ethics or morality.

Fairly obvious is that if the rules are the sole basis of morals or ethics, then what is the basis for the rules? If following the rules is all that matters, then what justifies the rules as they exist? Also, a purely rule-based morality does not provide a sufficient basis for understanding the roots of moral motivation or for a discussion of moral competency—

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear Liberals talk about how accessible the Prime Minister is. I would love to have him come to my riding to see the energy jobs there, to see the impact on the industrial heartland. By the way, Vegreville is not that far away, so he could kill two birds with one stone and talk to people in Vegreville about the impact of the Liberal policies. They certainly will not have $1,500 to raise those important issues. It is important for the Prime Minister to be accessible in all parts of the country, especially to hear from those who are suffering job losses.

I want to ask my friend a specific question. So often we have these ethical discussions. We talk about rules, for example, we have to change the justice rule. I am of the view that it is not just about the rules. The rules have to be followed but not every possible contingency can be in them. There has to be something more behind the rules, call it character, call it virtue, call it an appreciation of the underlying philosophical concepts that are supposed to inform the rules. Every time a possible ethical breech exists, we cannot just try to tighten up the rules, because we will never get there. There has to be a development of those underlying concepts.

Does my friend agree with that, especially as we approach this legislation, which is on the tighten rules front but does not address the underlying problem.