Kevin Lamoureux

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, and I will repeat it once again for members, at the end of the day, there were questionable appointments that were made by the former Conservative government. Canadians understand that the former prime minister stepped outside the box in making those appointments. Quite frankly, the Conservatives are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves for their behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is in fact about unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct.As I indicated before, this is not the first time we have had to deal with this issue. In fact, if we go back, May 12, 2015, was the most recent incident prior to this. During that debate, a total of five speakers—three New Democrats, one Liberal, and the Green Party representative—spoke to that matter of privilege.We have had 37 speakers, and that was even before we started today. We also know that members of the Conservative Party have said that this matter of privilege is all about a filibuster. There is a responsibility of the opposition, especially the official opposition, to behave in a more responsible fashion in dealing with the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct.I would suggest there are in fact some games being played, and it is not fair to point the finger in one direction. All parties need to take a look at what they are doing, especially on this issue with respect to the Conservative Party. Does the member believe there is a responsibility of the official opposition to behave in a responsible fashion when it comes to debate? If we had 338 members debate everything that came before the House, it would take over five weeks to do one measure, and we might have 100 more measures to do. Mathematically, it is just not possible, unless we have a Conservative opposition that has one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is try to demonstrate it is dysfunctional. If it is dysfunctional, it is because of an incompetent, unreasonable official opposition. It does not take much. Give me 12 members and I can cause havoc, too. It does not mean it is responsible. I am challenging the member across the way to acknowledge that there is an onus of responsibility for the official opposition to do the right thing. Maybe the member could tell us why the Conservatives have chosen to filibuster this matter of privilege, if it is so important.

Mr. Speaker, given what has been said, we would like to review Hansard and we will get back to you in a relatively short time span.

Mr. Speaker, talk about pumping up their rhetoric.We are all Canadians. The member should know that it is Canadians who donate to political parties, at least that is a part of the law. The law is important to recognize here, because, in fact, the Liberal Party has been following the law. This is why there is no conflict of interest.At the end of the day, we have a government that is open to all Canadians, and that has been demonstrated in a very historic fashion. Never before have I witnessed, in my 25 years, a government that has been so aggressively progressive in reaching out, connecting with Canadians, and delivering on the policies that are important to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I have said on many occasions that at the end of the day we look at our laws and rules, and we as a party have followed those laws and rules. Nothing has been broken here. If we do not break the laws there is no conflict of interest. In fact, I would refer to, whether it is the New Democrats, or the Conservatives, where they have had to pay back monies. There have been no laws broken here, so there are no conflicts of interest to be challenged on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, these assertions are entirely false, as confirmed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Not only that, but the Liberal Party has moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, including facilitating media coverage, advance postings, posting them in publicly accessible spaces, and the timely reporting of event details and guest lists. Contrast that with the opposition parties that continue to organize their fundraising events in secret, barring journalists, and so much more.

Mr. Speaker, we were here today because of the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. This is not the first time. In fact, in recent years I have had to deal with it at the procedures and House affairs committee. Prior to going to PROC, it justifies a few hours of debate; then there is a vote, and it goes to committee.Now, on the other hand, there is a hidden agenda coming from the Conservative Party on this issue. The member actually made reference to it, and I applaud him for doing so, but other members of the Conservative Party have also made reference to it, and for them, it is all about filibustering. They are filibustering on a matter of privilege, the issue of access, which every member of the House takes very seriously, with the exception, it would appear, of some from the Conservative benches, who want to manipulate this issue in a very irresponsible fashion. That is what we see when opposition members admit this is a filibuster. They are debating it today because they want to have a filibuster on the very important issue of unfettered access. I know the constituents I represent would like to see a modernized Parliament. They would like to ensure that all members have unfettered access to the chamber. I believe they would be disappointed in the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservatives, because there is a responsibility for the official opposition to also be responsible inside the House. Today we have not witnessed responsible opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to a number of the accusations from across the way for the member. I would suggest that at the end of the day, what we are trying to do here is something that is very positive, something Canadians really want us to do. We recognize that there is a need for us to modernize Parliament. I challenge all members of this House, and even to go beyond that, I would like to see individuals from our constituencies come forward with ideas. I am very passionate about the Standing Orders, because I see their value. Whether in the standing committees or in the House of Commons, we can make a difference. The time is now.

Madam Speaker, again I would like to remind the members opposite that on July 9 of this year, just three short months ago, the Leader of the Opposition, along with former prime minister Stephen Harper, held a barbecue fundraiser in Calgary and charged a whopping $2,000 a table.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member recognized that we are indeed following the rules and the laws of this land. That is something we are doing. When one is following the laws, there cannot be a conflict of interest. The Conservatives know that, because we are following the same rules the Conservatives had in place when they were in government. We have a Prime Minister who is accessible to all Canadians, as is this cabinet, as are the members of the Liberal caucus, and there is no cost for that. We are in fact following the rules.

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find the will to see the clock at 6:30.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised. I thought maybe the member would apologize for misleading the House yesterday when he tried to give a false impression. Let me suggest to the member that he needs to recognize what he should have said was in fact on May 19, 2015, there was $500 a ticket to attend a fundraiser with the finance minister of the time, Joe Oliver. On January 30, 2015, there was another $500 dinner sponsored by the employment and social development minister, Jason Kenney, so there is more to it, and I was expecting the member to actually apologize for misleading the House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is reaffirm and reinforce that these assertions are entirely false, as confirmed by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Not only that, but the Liberal Party has indeed moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, including facilitating media coverage, advance postings, posting in publicly accessible spaces, and timely reporting of event details and guest lists. It is open and it is transparent.

Madam Speaker, I will repeat that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules, rules that were put in place by the previous Harper government. Events like these are one part of every party's fundraising and engagement work. Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country, and the party fully complies with the Elections Act in all cases.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that the government members within the Liberal caucus understand the importance of having unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. The parliamentary precinct includes the offices of members of Parliament, the House of Commons here for a vote or a debate, and the committees on the Hill and in the many different offices off the Hill itself. There is no doubt about that. Having said that, there is some concern, if we listen to what the mover and the seconder of the motion had to say about it, in terms of what is motivating it. This is, as I expressed earlier, that we should not in any way whatsoever be attempting to politicize this very important principle, which is indeed a privilege. Would the member across the way not agree with me? Would we get the commitment from the member that in no fashion would the member participate in something that would politicize this? After all, we all understand and appreciate that unfettered access. Will the member join me by making that statement?

Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize the benefits of that particular trip. The Canadian delegation engaged our American counterparts on many different files, whether it was dealing with the issue of climate change, environment and energy, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, border co-operation, or trade and commercial relations.This was an important trip. Canadians realize that. The only ones who do not seem to realize the benefits are the members of the Conservative Party, and that is most unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, there is no sham here. As a government, we respect the independent offices of these individuals who serve all parliamentarians. There is a process. That process is being followed. Members across the way are very much aware that the process is, in fact, being followed, and we are identifying outstanding Canadians who have the ability and credentials to do what is necessary in these very important positions.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. It is not undemocratic. I have been a parliamentarian for almost 25 years, most of those years, more than 20, on opposition benches. If the opposition members would like to take a look and get a better appreciation of what is being proposed in the discussion paper, they would see that there would be more accountability from the government benches and they would be seeing a Prime Minister who would be here more than once a week, as they know. The bottom line is I invite them, as the government House leader has done, to get engaged.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Red Deer—Lacombe made some allegations in here, false allegations.He stated that we cannot find an instance where Prime Minister Stephen Harper or anybody in the former cabinet previously had so-called cash for access events. What has actually happened? On May 19, there was one; on January 30, there was one; on May 6, there was one.Would the member, in essence, like to retract that, or would the Conservative Party acknowledge that what we are doing is no different than what they did?

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives continue to focus on an issue that has been dealt with by the commissioner, this government wants to continue to focus on what is a priority for all Canadians. A good example of that is Canada's middle class. From the very beginning of the reduction of the Canada middle-class tax bracket, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians in every region of this country, we realized that the policies and the focus of this government on motivating and getting the economy moving forward are creating tangible jobs, 400,000-plus last year—

Mr. Speaker, it is not my fault that the member does not like the answer per se. I believe Canadians should be first of mind, and at the end of day I believe that they recognize the value of that particular trip. The Canadian delegation engaged our American counterparts on many different files. As I indicated, that included climate change, environment and energy, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, border co-operation, and trade and—

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that we have in Canada some of the strictest rules in the country. There are many ways in which other jurisdictions raise money. Let us be very clear that there have been no laws broken, and if there have been no laws broken, there is no conflict of interest.No matter how often the Conservatives and the NDP repeat it, the bottom line is there is no conflict of interest. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, when the member himself changed the Standing Orders for the election of the Speaker, for which we used to have a runoff ballot, he brought in a ranked ballot system. Forty per cent of the members of the House actually opposed that. Why the double standard? Why did the member not seek unanimous consent when he wanted to change the rules?

Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. We will review what the member has brought forward to the House and report back in due course.

Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise and we will abide by the exact same rules, rules that were put in place by the previous government, rules that many members sitting on that side of the House use to fundraise for the Conservative Party, for example.I would like to remind members opposite that on May 19, 2015, former finance minister Joe Oliver held a fundraising event at the elite private Albany Club of Toronto. This special event was advertised as being held by the hon. Joe Oliver, PC, MP, and charged $500 a head.The point is that we are following the laws of Elections Canada.

Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise and we all abide by the exact same rules, rules that were put in place by the previous government, rules that many members sitting on the other side of the House use to fundraise for the Conservative Party.I would like to remind the members opposite that on July 9 of this year, just three short months ago, the Leader of the Opposition, along with former prime minister Stephen Harper, held a barbecue fundraiser in Calgary and charged a whopping $2,000 per table. I do not know about anyone else, but I have never been to a barbecue where someone has to buy a table.Clearly, the—

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to provide a response to the question of privilege raised by the member for Thornhill on November 2, respecting the Prime Minister's response to an oral question on Tuesday, October 31. I submit that the matter is a dispute as to the facts, and therefore does not meet the criteria for finding a prima facie question of privilege. Page 86 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, sets out the criteria for establishing whether a member has deliberately misled the House. It states: it must be proven that the statement was misleading;...it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect;...that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. I submit, these criteria have not been met. On October 31, 2017, in response to an oral question from the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, the Prime Minister stated the following: ...two ministers had controlled assets held indirectly. The finance minister has announced that he is moving forward, going above and beyond what was originally asked. In the case of the other minister, those assets were divested 18 months ago. The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that there is no difference of opinion on this issue between her and the Prime Minister. In fact, on November 2, 2017, the Ethics Commissioner released a statement that refutes the allegation that the commissioner is at odds with the statement made by the Prime Minister. I agree with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley who intervened on this issue. “Now the reasons she has as Ethics Commissioner to keep the number somewhat vague, as less than five but more than one, is something that is at her discretion. That is not for us to judge.” Allegations of breach of privilege are often dismissed as disputes as to the facts. There are numerous precedents in support of this. Most recently, on May 5, 2016, the Speaker ruled: As members can appreciate, the threshold is very high, purposely so given the seriousness of the allegation and its potential consequences for members individually and collectively. From this, it stands to reason that a finding of a prima facie case of privilege is an exceedingly rare occurrence in cases with respect to disputed facts. I submit that the matter is a dispute as to the facts and therefore does not meet the conditions for a prima facie question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, there is no Liberal recommending that the Prime Minister work once a week. The only ones who are recommending that seem to be the Conservatives. The bottom line is that what we should be doing is taking that discussion paper and entering into a dialogue that will modernize Canada's Parliament. Canadians expect that. This Prime Minister has made that commitment, and the government House leader has provided us the opportunity to really get engaged on this issue. Let us see if we can get some expert witnesses from across Canada who will also get engaged in the debate, along with other Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the scandal is not on this side of the House; the scandal is on that side of the House. The facts are clear. The previous government made serious appointments that took effect after the Conservatives lost the election. It is time they look in the mirror, and they will see where the scandal resides.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the discussion. I can assure members, and I am sure everyone can sympathize, that I work seven days a week. Some of those days I am in Winnipeg, and some of those days I am in Ottawa. Here is an example. We only work a few hours on Fridays. If we could readjust those hours so that I could attend events on a Friday evening where my constituents would love to see me, I am open to that. The bottom line is that most Canadians actually start work before 10 a.m. Why not start at 9 a.m.? At least let us have that discussion. That is what the government House leader is asking us to do.

Mr. Speaker, that pledge has never been broken. This government believes in accountability and transparency and will act accordingly. As the Prime Minister has said time and time again, he is happy to answer any questions the commissioner has during the process. I would like to encourage members opposite to remain focused on what is important to Canadians. We know that middle-class Canadians want to see results, and that is something this government is delivering every day.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House are aware that while the House is in session, they are not allowed to take pictures. I note that there has been at least one member of the New Democratic Party who has done so. I believe it has been posted. I just wanted to raise it as a point of order, and perhaps that individual would take down the picture if it is on social media.Also, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could just remind members that while we are in session, they are not supposed to be taking pictures with their smart phones.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend across the way that the Prime Minister takes all Canadians very seriously. That is one of the reasons he is on a tour of town halls, whether in Winnipeg or Edmonton. I believe today he is on Vancouver Island.It is important to recognize that the security agencies are the ones that make the determination on what is needed to protect the Prime Minister, as they have done for previous prime ministers, and we follow their recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the idea that the Conservatives are really out of queue with regard to the benefits of this particular trip.At the end of the day, we need to recognize the importance of having a strong, healthy relationship with our neighbours to the south. This is something our government takes very seriously and is something where we have seen a great deal of co-operation between the different ministries and what is taking place in Ottawa. The government is making a genuine effort to try to get a more enriched middle class by looking at broadening the relationship between Canada and the United States.

Madam Speaker, we all understand that many members sitting on that side of the House—

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. We have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced and constrained and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officers has confirmed that every party in every campaign does them. There is no conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize that only Canadians can actually donate.We have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules. I will repeat that the Chief Electoral Officer has stated that Canada's political financing laws are the “most advanced and constrained and transparent” in the world.

Madam Speaker, again I will repeat. Events like these are one part of every party's fundraising and engagement work. Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country, and the party fully complies with the Elections Act in all cases.When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist, and we will continue to follow the rules. These are the same rules that all members of Parliament and all parties that fundraise follow, and we all abide by those same exact rules.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege.It is really important that we recognize that parliamentary privilege has to be recognized inside the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce to members that we have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced and constrained and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer has confirmed that every party and every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and Canadians have nothing to fear. We are operating within the rules. It is important that we recognize that we have the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government and our party respects those rules.In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that every party, including the Conservative Party, in every campaign, has the same sorts of events.

I sat back and I listened to the comments made by the members opposite on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate it if they too would be patient and listen to what I have to say.Privilege is an important issue. I have served as a parliamentarian for close to 30 years, and I have heard assertions in the past when someone has stood in his or her place. A part of parliamentary privilege also ensures that there is a sense of responsibility accompanying that particular privilege. I have witnessed on numerous occasions Conservatives and New Democrats challenging the government's accountability by suggesting that a member should go outside the chamber to say what he or she might have said inside the chamber. I would remind all members of the House that there is a sense of accountability with the privilege that has been given to us as we sit in the House. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question of privilege in this matter, which is nothing more than a dispute over the facts. I say this based on what I have heard over the years from members of the Conservative Party and members of the NDP when they challenge members to be accountable for what they say here, that is, members who are not prepared to say the same outside the chamber as inside.

Mr. Speaker, these assertions are entirely false, as confirmed by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Not only that, but the Liberal Party has moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, including facilitating media coverage, advance postings, posting in publicly accessible places, and timely reporting of event details and guest lists. Contrast that to opposition parties, which continue to organize their fundraising events in secret, barring journalists and hiding details about who is attending their closed-door events.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can be any clearer. I again say, we have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules. The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced and constrained and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer said and confirmed that every party and every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the debate on the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow morning the House will begin consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the opioids legislation. Following question period, we will proceed to Bill C-7, the RCMP labour bill. On Monday and Tuesday next week, we will return to debate on the bills just listed. On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-4, respecting unions. In the evening, the House will consider the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in committee of the whole.Next Thursday, May 18, shall be an allocated day.

Mr. Speaker, these assertions are entirely false, as confirmed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Not only that, but the Liberal Party has moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, including facilitating media coverage, advance postings, postings in publicly accessible spaces, and timely reporting of events, details, and guest lists. Contrast that to opposition parties, which continue to organize their fundraising events in secret, barring journalists and hiding details about who is attending their closed-door events.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on what I believe was an inappropriate comment made from across the way. The Minister of National Defence was providing an answer, which was quite clear to individuals who heard the question, yet the member for Calgary Midnapore stated from his seat that we need to have English to English translation.I am wondering if the member would do the proper thing and apologize, or at the very least, explain his comment.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. The truth will kind of set us free.I must say that the opposition members do seem to be confused about how donations to charities actually work. If they need a lesson on how independent charities and donations work, perhaps they should ask the member for Chilliwack—Hope to call his father. His father is a former Conservative MP who actually sits on the board of directors, so it might be worth making that telephone call.It should be clear that the Prime Minister has absolutely no involvement in this charity.

Madam Speaker, if it is the same question, it is the same answer. The same answer is quite frankly that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise. We know that, and we all abide by the same rules, rules that were put in place by the previous Harper government. The party is in full compliance with the Elections Act. The member knows that.

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is repeat it for my friend across the way. As I have indicated, the previous commissioner, both in her report and testimony in committee, answered many different questions related to her report. We accept her findings and respect her work. As the opposition wants to focus on this particular issue, we will continue to focus on the important issues that Canadians have. In Winnipeg North alone, there are millions of dollars going toward the Canada child benefit, lifting hundreds of children out of poverty. These are important issues to Canadians, and they are important issues to this government.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, and I will repeat it once again for members, at the end of the day, there were questionable appointments that were made by the former Conservative government. Canadians understand that the former prime minister stepped outside the box in making those appointments. Quite frankly, the Conservatives are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves for their behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, we take the matter seriously. I will look into it and get back and report to the House at a later time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Red Deer—Lacombe made some allegations in here, false allegations.He stated that we cannot find an instance where Prime Minister Stephen Harper or anybody in the former cabinet previously had so-called cash for access events. What has actually happened? On May 19, there was one; on January 30, there was one; on May 6, there was one.Would the member, in essence, like to retract that, or would the Conservative Party acknowledge that what we are doing is no different than what they did?

Mr. Speaker, like all families of prime ministers, a small number of staff provide assistance. Given the nature of the Prime Minister's responsibilities, and his young family, he employs two household employees who, in addition to performing other duties around the house, act as secondary caregivers to the three children. It should come as no surprise that the Prime Minister has a different family situation with three young children than the previous prime minister's family did.

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the scandal is not on this side of the House; the scandal is on that side of the House. The facts are clear. The previous government made serious appointments that took effect after the Conservatives lost the election. It is time they look in the mirror, and they will see where the scandal resides.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend across the way that the Prime Minister takes all Canadians very seriously. That is one of the reasons he is on a tour of town halls, whether in Winnipeg or Edmonton. I believe today he is on Vancouver Island.It is important to recognize that the security agencies are the ones that make the determination on what is needed to protect the Prime Minister, as they have done for previous prime ministers, and we follow their recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you were to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the deferred recorded division on the motion M-163, standing in the name of the Member for Etobicoke Centre, currently scheduled on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business, be deferred anew to immediately after the time provided for Oral Questions that day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it you would find unanimous support for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, any recorded division in respect of an item of private members' business deferred to Wednesday, February 14, 2018, immediately before the time provided for private members' business, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1) or 98(4), shall be deemed deferred anew until Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on what I believe was an inappropriate comment made from across the way. The Minister of National Defence was providing an answer, which was quite clear to individuals who heard the question, yet the member for Calgary Midnapore stated from his seat that we need to have English to English translation.I am wondering if the member would do the proper thing and apologize, or at the very least, explain his comment.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the debate on the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow morning the House will begin consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the opioids legislation. Following question period, we will proceed to Bill C-7, the RCMP labour bill. On Monday and Tuesday next week, we will return to debate on the bills just listed. On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-4, respecting unions. In the evening, the House will consider the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in committee of the whole.Next Thursday, May 18, shall be an allocated day.

Mr. Speaker, I have said on many occasions that at the end of the day we look at our laws and rules, and we as a party have followed those laws and rules. Nothing has been broken here. If we do not break the laws there is no conflict of interest. In fact, I would refer to, whether it is the New Democrats, or the Conservatives, where they have had to pay back monies. There have been no laws broken here, so there are no conflicts of interest to be challenged on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties of the House, and I seek unanimous consent to allow that, in relation to the annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors, 10 members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in August 2016, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.I have two other requests.

Mr. Speaker, we were here today because of the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. This is not the first time. In fact, in recent years I have had to deal with it at the procedures and House affairs committee. Prior to going to PROC, it justifies a few hours of debate; then there is a vote, and it goes to committee.Now, on the other hand, there is a hidden agenda coming from the Conservative Party on this issue. The member actually made reference to it, and I applaud him for doing so, but other members of the Conservative Party have also made reference to it, and for them, it is all about filibustering. They are filibustering on a matter of privilege, the issue of access, which every member of the House takes very seriously, with the exception, it would appear, of some from the Conservative benches, who want to manipulate this issue in a very irresponsible fashion. That is what we see when opposition members admit this is a filibuster. They are debating it today because they want to have a filibuster on the very important issue of unfettered access. I know the constituents I represent would like to see a modernized Parliament. They would like to ensure that all members have unfettered access to the chamber. I believe they would be disappointed in the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservatives, because there is a responsibility for the official opposition to also be responsible inside the House. Today we have not witnessed responsible opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. The truth will kind of set us free.I must say that the opposition members do seem to be confused about how donations to charities actually work. If they need a lesson on how independent charities and donations work, perhaps they should ask the member for Chilliwack—Hope to call his father. His father is a former Conservative MP who actually sits on the board of directors, so it might be worth making that telephone call.It should be clear that the Prime Minister has absolutely no involvement in this charity.

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that we have in Canada some of the strictest rules in the country. There are many ways in which other jurisdictions raise money. Let us be very clear that there have been no laws broken, and if there have been no laws broken, there is no conflict of interest.No matter how often the Conservatives and the NDP repeat it, the bottom line is there is no conflict of interest. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind my colleague across the way that the security agencies make the determination on what is needed in order to protect this Prime Minister, as they have done for previous prime ministers, and we follow their recommendations. The former commissioner has acknowledged that these costs are incurred as part of the role of being the prime minister.The Prime Minister will continue to work with the commissioner to clear future family vacations.

Madam Speaker, I will repeat that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules, rules that were put in place by the previous Harper government. Events like these are one part of every party's fundraising and engagement work. Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country, and the party fully complies with the Elections Act in all cases.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the Liberal Party has moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, which includes facilitating media coverage, advance postings, posting in publicly accessible spaces, and timely reporting of event details and guest lists. Contrast that with the opposition parties who continue to organize their fundraising events in secret, barring journalists, and hiding details about who is attending their closed-door events.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Remuneration amounts for payment are established in the Salaries Act for ministers with a portfolio, ministers of state who preside over a ministry of state, and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. This statute does not authorize remuneration for either ministers without a portfolio listed in the Salaries Act or ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry of state. Therefore, the vote lC wording contained in the supply bill for certain organizations provides the authority to make such payments.Using a supply bill to authorize such payments is a long-standing arrangement going back at least to 1995. At that time, the authority appeared only in the program expenditures vote on the Privy Council Office. Since 2007-08, the authority appears in the program or operating expenditure vote of each department that could potentially support a minister without a portfolio or a minister of state who does not preside over a ministry of state.With respect to Bill C-24, with the exception of the Minister of La Francophonie, the individuals appointed on November 4, 2015, to positions of Minister of Science, Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, and Minister of Status of Women are remunerated under vote 1C.When Bill C-24 receives royal assent, it will authorize payment under the Salaries Act and vote 1C will no longer be used for this purpose in future estimates.The payment under vote 1C not only respects the supplementary estimates process, it is also fully within the legal mandate and authority of the government.

Mr. Speaker, these assertions are entirely false, as confirmed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Not only that, but the Liberal Party has moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, including facilitating media coverage, advance postings, postings in publicly accessible spaces, and timely reporting of events, details, and guest lists. Contrast that to opposition parties, which continue to organize their fundraising events in secret, barring journalists and hiding details about who is attending their closed-door events.

Mr. Speaker, these assertions are entirely false, as confirmed by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Not only that, but the Liberal Party has moved forward with the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency, including facilitating media coverage, advance postings, posting in publicly accessible places, and timely reporting of event details and guest lists. Contrast that to opposition parties, which continue to organize their fundraising events in secret, barring journalists and hiding details about who is attending their closed-door events.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to modernizing Canada's Parliament.I have been a parliamentarian for more than 20 years. Many of those years, in fact, more than 20 of them, were in opposition. I understand the importance of modernization. This is actually a good thing for Canada. I would invite all members to be a part of that discussion.

Madam Speaker, we all understand that many members sitting on that side of the House—

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. It is not undemocratic. I have been a parliamentarian for almost 25 years, most of those years, more than 20, on opposition benches. If the opposition members would like to take a look and get a better appreciation of what is being proposed in the discussion paper, they would see that there would be more accountability from the government benches and they would be seeing a Prime Minister who would be here more than once a week, as they know. The bottom line is I invite them, as the government House leader has done, to get engaged.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government House leader has brought forward a discussion paper that is worthy of a good talk, whether it is inside this chamber or at the committee level. Most important is that we engage Canadians and the experts, because it is, in fact, time that we modernized Parliament. I believe the government House leader is on the right track in advancing that very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the member realize he should get on focus with what Canadians want. They recognize that there is a need for an important relationship to be established between the United States and Canada. This is a Prime Minister that is—

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that this was the first official visit to the United States by a Canadian prime minister since 1997. In fact, the relationship between Canada and the United States is our most important bilateral relationship. We have the longest, most peaceful, and mutually beneficial relationship of any two countries since the birth of these two nations. The Prime Minister discussed the revitalization of the Canada-U.S. relationship and the importance of a closer relationship between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I request the opposition to remain focused on what is really important, and to recognize that this was in fact the first official visit to the United States by a Canadian Prime Minister since 1997.The relationship between Canada and the United States is our most important bilateral relationship. We have the longest, most peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship of any two countries since the birth of the nation state.The Prime Minister discussed the revitalization of the Canada-U.S. relationship, and the importance of a closer partnership between Canada—

Mr. Speaker, members need to realize that the government House leader has provided a discussion paper, which is the continuation of a great deal of debate that has been taking place for well over a year now, and in many different forums, including the PROC committee. I am an optimistic person, and I am hopeful that at the end of the day, we will see a more modern parliamentary system, if we get a higher sense of commitment from all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has recognized the importance of the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States and has made great strides in making a difference in improving that bilateral relationship. The Conservatives should actually be applauding the government for its actions. Within six months we have been able to accomplish so much.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read the discussion paper, and that is not how I interpret it. What I see is a Prime Minister who is genuinely trying to bring our parliamentary system forward. I would really encourage all members of the House to be part of that discussion. We can do better inside the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, modernization is and can be a very positive experience for the House of Commons. I would really encourage the hon. member, and in fact, all members of the House, to get engaged in this very important discussion. We can, in fact, improve the system.

Mr. Speaker, what we can be very clear on is that our government made a sincere, genuine commitment to establishing a relationship with our indigenous people. We recognize there are many things at which the government needs to look. One of the issues before us is in regard to our young people. Their friendship centres do play a significant role.

Madam Speaker, I will review the answer that was provided, but I can assure the member that we go through hundreds of questions and attempt to provide the best and fullest answers whenever possible. I will report back after I have had the opportunity to look at what the member put on the record today.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague across the way will be happy with what we are about to say. We will continue today with second reading of Bill C-47, the Arms Trade Treaty. When the debate is completed, we will then proceed with Bill C-55, the protection of Canada's marine and coastal areas. Tomorrow we will return to Bill C-55. The business for Monday and Wednesday next week will be Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium bill. Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to repeat. We have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced, constrained, and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that every party in every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. We have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced and constrained and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officers has confirmed that every party in every campaign does them. There is no conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce to members that we have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced and constrained and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer has confirmed that every party and every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can be any clearer. I again say, we have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules. The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced and constrained and transparent in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer said and confirmed that every party and every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, the best thing I can do when a member repeats a question is to repeat the answer and assure the member that in fact we do have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government. Our party respects and follows those rules. I will refer to the Chief Electoral Officer, who stated, when referring to Canada's financial laws, that we have some of “the most advanced and constrained and transparent” laws in the world.We are following the rules and the laws. There is no conflict of interest. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all questions relating to the Standing Orders, because it is a subject which I feel very passionate about. Having said that, I think that we have a wonderful opportunity before us. We have a discussion paper that has been put forward in advance by the government House leader. I would challenge all members to get engaged with that discussion. In fact, I would suggest that there are many individuals, stakeholders, and others who also have some thoughts in terms of how we can modernize Canada's Parliament. I see that as a positive thing and I would invite all members to get engaged.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to be very clear. We have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules. The Chief Electoral Officer stated that Canada's political finance laws are “the most advanced and constrained and transparent” in the world. In regard to ticketed fundraising events, he confirmed that every party in every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will just repeat what I said earlier in question period. We do have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.The Chief Electoral Officer has stated that Canada's political financing laws are the most advanced, constrained, and transparent in the world. With regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer has confirmed that every party in every campaign does them.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that earlier this week, seven extremely impressive individuals took their seats in the Senate as independent senators. Peter Harder, a long–term and highly respected public servant, is named the government representative in the Senate. I am confident in his ability to bring senators together to study, adopt, and when required to improve government legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we, in fact, put in place a new appointment process that supports open, transparent, and merit-based selection processes. Our aim is to identify high-quality candidates who will help to achieve gender parity and truly reflect Canada's diversity. Under our new process, we have made over 400 appointments, of which 56% are women, over 11% are visible minorities, and 10% are indigenous. It is a process that is evidently working quite well.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that immediately after the commissioner's report was tabled, the Prime Minister did take responsibility. He accepted the findings and committed to working with the office of the commissioner on future personal and family vacations. Again, as the Conservatives want to focus on that issue, this government will continue to persist in its focus on what is important to Canadians, and get a better sense by listening to some of the things that are being talked about at town halls. Canada's middle class is important and this is something that the government will continue—

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize that we have in fact put in place a new appointments process which supports an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process. Our aim is to identify high-quality candidates who will help to achieve gender parity and truly reflect Canada's diversity. It is important to note the 140 appointments, of which 63% are women, 13% are visible minorities, and 10% are indigenous. The Conservatives should be applauding the type of appointments we are making.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that they are Canadians we are really talking about, Canadian donors.The reality is that we have some of the strictest political financing regulations in the country and they are always being followed.We find it peculiar that the opposition members are trying to politicize the particular issue, since they should very well know that the process for approval of this was in 2012 under the previous government. It was approved by the then minister of finance, Joe Oliver.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the idea that the Conservatives are really out of queue with regard to the benefits of this particular trip.At the end of the day, we need to recognize the importance of having a strong, healthy relationship with our neighbours to the south. This is something our government takes very seriously and is something where we have seen a great deal of co-operation between the different ministries and what is taking place in Ottawa. The government is making a genuine effort to try to get a more enriched middle class by looking at broadening the relationship between Canada and the United States.

Madam Speaker, these are the same rules that the Stephen Harper Conservative government followed. It is important that we recognize that all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules. We have some of the most stringent rules in the country. When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist, and we will continue to follow those rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that the government members within the Liberal caucus understand the importance of having unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. The parliamentary precinct includes the offices of members of Parliament, the House of Commons here for a vote or a debate, and the committees on the Hill and in the many different offices off the Hill itself. There is no doubt about that. Having said that, there is some concern, if we listen to what the mover and the seconder of the motion had to say about it, in terms of what is motivating it. This is, as I expressed earlier, that we should not in any way whatsoever be attempting to politicize this very important principle, which is indeed a privilege. Would the member across the way not agree with me? Would we get the commitment from the member that in no fashion would the member participate in something that would politicize this? After all, we all understand and appreciate that unfettered access. Will the member join me by making that statement?

Mr. Speaker, there is no sham here. As a government, we respect the independent offices of these individuals who serve all parliamentarians. There is a process. That process is being followed. Members across the way are very much aware that the process is, in fact, being followed, and we are identifying outstanding Canadians who have the ability and credentials to do what is necessary in these very important positions.

Mr. Speaker, if I may just emphasize how important this was. This was in fact the first official visit to the United States of a Canadian Prime Minister since 1997. If we look at what was actually accomplished, the Canadian delegation engaged our American counterparts on many files, including climate change, environment and energy, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, border co-operation, and trade and commercial relationships. There was a lot of good work done on behalf of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, not only can I read, but I also understand.I would again emphasize that in Canada we have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules.I am going to quote the Chief Electoral Officer once again in regard to Canada's political financing laws, who says they are the “most advanced and constrained and transparent” in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the Senate itself sets its budget. We need to respect that fact.I can assure the member that there is a sense of accountability and transparency there, and I would remind the member that it was his party and his caucus that resisted, at all costs, proactive disclosure. If it were not for the current Prime Minister, we still would not have proactive disclosure in the New Democratic caucus.

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives continue to focus on an issue that has been dealt with by the commissioner, this government wants to continue to focus on what is a priority for all Canadians. A good example of that is Canada's middle class. From the very beginning of the reduction of the Canada middle-class tax bracket, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians in every region of this country, we realized that the policies and the focus of this government on motivating and getting the economy moving forward are creating tangible jobs, 400,000-plus last year—

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that, at the end of the day, we have a Prime Minister who is committed to working with the Ethics Commissioner in full co-operation, which has been illustrated on numerous occasions. We, on this side of the House, have full confidence in our independent offices, whether it is the commissioner's office or Elections Canada. This is important in terms of our parliamentary traditions and history, and we support that.

Madam Speaker, it is important that we realize that all members of Parliament from all parties fundraise, and we all abide by the exact same rules, as demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament and all parties fundraise and we all abide by the exact same rules. Events like these are one part of every party's fundraising and engagement work. It is important for us to recognize that when the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist and we continue to follow all the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize that only Canadians can actually donate.We have some of the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government, and our party respects those rules. I will repeat that the Chief Electoral Officer has stated that Canada's political financing laws are the “most advanced and constrained and transparent” in the world.

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is repeat it for my friend across the way. As I have indicated, the previous commissioner, both in her report and testimony in committee, answered many different questions related to her report. We accept her findings and respect her work. As the opposition wants to focus on this particular issue, we will continue to focus on the important issues that Canadians have. In Winnipeg North alone, there are millions of dollars going toward the Canada child benefit, lifting hundreds of children out of poverty. These are important issues to Canadians, and they are important issues to this government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege.It is really important that we recognize that parliamentary privilege has to be recognized inside the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and Canadians have nothing to fear. We are operating within the rules. It is important that we recognize that we have the strictest rules around fundraising of any level of government and our party respects those rules.In regard to ticketed fundraising events, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that every party, including the Conservative Party, in every campaign, has the same sorts of events.

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is trying to assist all of us by providing a discussion paper that will allow us to make modifications to outdated standing orders. Most people would recognize that there is a need for us to modernize the Canadian Parliament.I look forward to having more discussions over the coming days as we try to improve the working environment for all members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, that pledge has never been broken. This government believes in accountability and transparency and will act accordingly. As the Prime Minister has said time and time again, he is happy to answer any questions the commissioner has during the process. I would like to encourage members opposite to remain focused on what is important to Canadians. We know that middle-class Canadians want to see results, and that is something this government is delivering every day.

Mr. Speaker, as the member and all members of the House will know, this issue is all about unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. It is not the first time this has happened. In fact, it has happened a few times.I sat on PROC on a couple of occasions and had to deal with the issue. We all understand and appreciate PROC is where the issue is best dealt with. The last time it was dealt with in the House was on May 12, 2015. The total number of speakers was five, representing the parties. They stood in their place and explained why it was so important that PROC deal with the issue.As of right now when the member sat down, we have had 49 members speak to this issue. A number of members said that they were speaking because it is a filibuster on a privilege issue. What are the options? If we were not debating this issue, we would actually be debating the national budget and the budget implementation bill.Does the member believe his constituents would rather we were debating the budget, the priorities of government, and the priorities of opposition parties, or would they rather we continue what can easily be justified, from my perspective, as an opposition filibuster on an issue that should in fact be dealt with by PROC?We in the Liberal caucus have made it very clear that we want the issue to go to PROC. We want to ensure that every member of this House has unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to read the commissioner's report. As has been the case for past prime ministers, and is the case for this Prime Minister, whenever and wherever the Prime Minister travels there are costs related to security. We always accept the advice of our security agencies as to how best to ensure the safety of the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has said, going forward he will engage with the commissioner to discuss personal and family vacations.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the length of the debate that we have had with regard to this issue. We have now had 10 times as many people speak on the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, which is a record number, given the topic. I am glad to see that it looks as if it is coming to an end, because we want to get on to other matters, such as the budget debate, and I understand a private member's hour will be coming up shortly. I will leave an open-ended question for the member across the way in regard to how important it is that both the opposition and the government recognize PROC and wish it well in trying to resolve the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but obviously I disagree with it. Let me provide an answer that I provided earlier.As has been the case for past prime ministers, and as is the case for this Prime Minister, whenever and wherever the Prime Minister travels, there are costs related to security. We always accept the advice of our security agencies as to how best to ensure the safety of the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has said, going forward he will engage the commissioner to discuss both personal and family vacations.

Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to a number of the accusations from across the way for the member. I would suggest that at the end of the day, what we are trying to do here is something that is very positive, something Canadians really want us to do. We recognize that there is a need for us to modernize Parliament. I challenge all members of this House, and even to go beyond that, I would like to see individuals from our constituencies come forward with ideas. I am very passionate about the Standing Orders, because I see their value. Whether in the standing committees or in the House of Commons, we can make a difference. The time is now.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that immediately after the commissioner's report was tabled, the Prime Minister took responsibility, accepted the findings, and committed to working with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner on all future personal and family vacations. On our side, we thank the commissioner, and we accept the findings.