Democratic Reform  Actually, Mr. Speaker, the minister should have listened to those quotes. It is quite clear that the Liberals have a preference. They admit that but they will not tell Canadians what it is. That is the problem. They continue to claim they are being transparent. Yeah, sure. Will the minister acknowledge that it is their own statements that are indeed undermining the committee's work?

Freedom of the Press  Mr. Speaker, the government members have already said twice that they already know what the result is. It is not our cynicism. It is they who are undermining both. On Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if any other journalists are currently under surveillance by federal authorities.

Freedom of the Press  Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting choice of words, “is not applicable”, because if the number were zero, I am sure the minister would have no trouble saying so. Back in May, when I first called for a full investigation, the same minister claimed that it was an isolated case of police illegally spying on journalists, and that there was no need whatsoever to look any further.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, of course it is not fair. I remember the Apotex scandal, involving Joe Volpe. I remember one wag who had put something on the Internet, and it was about an 11 year old saying that he found $5,000 on a park bench, and decided to give it to Joe Volpe instead of using it to help pay for his education.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, that is interesting and it is consistent with what we have been talking about today. For example, the Liberals swore up and down during the election campaign that they would lower the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses down to 9%, a promise they quickly broke.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, I got hold of the application form to become a Liberal MP and there is actually a sentence that explains “you must not embarrass easily”. That is why they can get otherwise honourable people like the member of Parliament for Pierrefonds—Dollard to stand in the House of Commons and pretend he does not understand that $1,500 to meet a minister behind the closed doors of an elite law firm in downtown Toronto is not a free public consultation.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the fact that we have never completed medicare. When Tommy Douglas' model of free universal public medical care was brought in nationally in the 1960s, everyone knew, and Tommy Douglas said it at the time, that we had to complete it with pharmacare.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, the member is once again making the same Liberal mistake of confusing private $1,500 access with public consultation. He is far too intelligent to make that mistake on his own. Somebody put that talking point into his head. With regard to gender parity in cabinet, it is a good thing.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, seeing the Liberals tripping over themselves to avoid the real question, it makes me wonder if they even read the motion. Allow me to read it: That, in the opinion of the House, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner should be granted the authority to oversee and enforce the directives to Ministers listed in Open and Accountable Government in order to end the current practice of “cash-for-access” by ensuring there is no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians or political parties.

Democratic Reform  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has signalled that he may also break his promise on changing the electoral system. The reason he gave is that the Liberals won the last election with the current system. That is actually what he said. I would like to ask the Prime Minister about his own private town hall on electoral reform.

Democratic Reform  Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister has a hard time admitting this, but most of the people at his secret town hall supported proportional representation. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he believes in evidence-based decision making. Well, 90% of the experts who testified before the parliamentary committee were in favour of proportional representation.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wrote in the mandate letter to every one of his ministers the following: ...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. What did the Prime Minister mean by that?

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, cash for access fundraisers do affect the impartiality of his ministers, and yet, the Liberals keep defending themselves as the Prime Minister just did because they are in technical compliance with the law. That is not what he promised. Cash for access fundraising is a form of corruption, and this country has had it with Liberal corruption.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, defending that freedom means doing something when we learn that a journalist here in Ottawa like Joel-Denis Bellavance is under police surveillance, and that minister did nothing in the Joel-Denis Bellavance case. That is the reality. There was recently another cash for access fundraiser involving the Minister of Finance.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, is the member really unaware that the Prime Minister put in the finance minister's mandate letter that he has obligations that go beyond the law, or is she now admitting that when the Prime Minister put that in the mandate letter it was a fraud on the Canadian public, because they were not—