House of Commons Hansard #11 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hunting.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, is negotiating a $90,000 backroom deal to buy the silence of a senator a valid legal expense?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I think I have been very clear that my view was that Mr. Duffy should repay his expenses, expenses he took inappropriately from the taxpayers of Canada. That is not the obligation of the Conservative Party and Mr. Duffy has not yet done that. The fact of the matter is that parties do assist their members in good standing from time to time with legal expenses. In fact, it is the case.
The member can confirm it is the case that his political party has on a number of occasions provided him with substantial legal assistance.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, what work was done by the law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne to earn a $13,000 cheque from the Prime Minister's lawyers?
Exactly what work was done by the law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne on behalf of the Prime Minister to merit seeing members of the Conservative Party pay $13,000 to that firm? How is that possible? What real work was done if it were a valid legal expense?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party, as do other parties, provide legal assistance to their members of Parliament.
In the case of the leader of the NDP, it is my understanding, and he can confirm, that not only has his party in the past paid for certain legal expenses, it even paid findings of wrongdoing against him by a court of law. The party paid almost $100,000 in damages on his behalf. Could he confirm that?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. The hon. member for Wascana now has the floor and I would like to hear him.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says on February 13 he ordered Mike Duffy to repay his expenses, but from that date until May 15, three full months, we are told the Prime Minister was never briefed on his hand-picked star senator, nor did he ask any questions. During that time, $90,000 in hush money was paid, plus $13,000 in legal fees, a Deloitte audit was subverted, a Senate report was corrupted, and a false story was concocted about a bank mortgage.
When did the Prime Minister first hear that his staff, for which he is accountable, had counselled Mike Duffy to lie?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already answered that question.
At the same time, the Liberal position on this is truly unbelievable. The Liberals are trying to make victims out of these three senators and disgraced Liberal senator Mac Harb. They stole hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars. It is inappropriate and Canadians have been quite clear. They cannot accept accountability through an election, so they want us to do that accountability. That is why there is a motion in front of the Senate now to expel these three senators without pay and that is why we are going to move forward with that. I only hope that the Liberals and the NDP will come on board and help us get that accountability.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the last question. Let us see if he will answer this one.
From May 15 to May 19, the Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Nigel Wright. He called him an honourable man showing leadership. He said he was just protecting taxpayers, just helping a dear old friend. Then suddenly Mr. Wright was thrown under the bus with Duffy. What changed?
What new information did the Prime Minister receive in those five days, from Wednesday to Sunday, that transformed Mr. Wright from being a brilliant chief of staff into a base manipulator who had to be fired?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has accepted full and sole responsibility for his actions. He knows that what he did was inappropriate. At the same time, the Prime Minister has said quite clearly that had he known this was taking place, he would have in no way approved of such action.
While the Liberal leader is talking about pipes in his token role as Liberal leader, we are talking about pipelines. We are talking about growing the economy. Those are the things that Canadians want us to talk about and those are the things we are going to continue to concentrate on as we go forward.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply troubled by the Prime Minister's incredible excuses and maybe it is because of the track record. They recall that illegal in-and-out financing scam on the Prime Minister's watch, a police raid, charges laid, a guilty plea, a conviction and the biggest possible fine; then the illegal conduct that cost him a cabinet minister in Labrador; now the charges laid in Peterborough, robocalls, voter suppression, electoral fraud, that deal to get rid of Alan Riddell, and of course, the Prime Minister on tape about an insurance policy for Chuck Cadman. Is there a pattern here?
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
It seems there is not a great deal in that question about actual government business. I heard a lot of questions about party business, which there have been previous speakers on, but I see the hon. parliamentary secretary rising. I will allow him to answer.
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, this would be a good time to give another story. I know how fond the House is of stories.
I have two daughters, a seven-year-old and a five-year-old, two beautiful girls, Natalie and Olivia, and each week I give them an allowance. Part of that allowance might be for cleaning their rooms. Both Natalie and Olivia know that sometimes their mother might clean their rooms. They both know that they should not ask for an allowance because they did not actually do the work. If my five-year-old and seven-year-old can figure this out, how is it that these senators cannot figure it out and how is it that the opposition supports that type of activity from our senators?
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, if, as the Prime Minister says, he does not defend the actions of Mr. Duffy, why then is he literally paying to defend the actions of Mr. Duffy?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, again, all political parties will provide legal assistance to members of its caucus in good standing.
If the Leader of the Opposition thinks this is a problem, why would he have his party not only pay his legal expenses but even pay nearly $100,000 of wrongdoing damages imposed by a court of law? Why?
That is something the Conservative Party certainly does not does do. Why did he do it?
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, well now that he has told us what they does not does do, let us look at what they does do.
Senator Duffy announced that he would repay his expenses on February 22. His expenses were paid back on March 26, more than a month later.
What was negotiated between the Prime Minister's own lawyers and Mike Duffy's lawyers during that month?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have been very clear. I said that Mr. Duffy should repay the expenses himself, expenses he had inappropriately claimed from the Senate for expenses he had never in fact incurred. That was the position.
My understanding, the understanding of this caucus and the entire Canadian public was that Mr. Duffy had indeed repaid those expenses himself. That proved not to be the truth.
Mr. Wright, who paid them on his behalf, is no longer on the public payroll. Mr. Duffy should not be on the public payroll, and neither should other senators who have behaved inappropriately as well.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, how many people knew that lawyers from the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservative Party were negotiating that deal with Mike Duffy?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Wright has not only been very clear, he has been very clear about his sole responsibility and his dealings with others on this matter. He is being held accountable for that.
I wonder how many members of the NDP are aware that this party leader not only claims expenses for court cases he loses but also expects his political party to actually pay, for him, the damages imposed by a court of law.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Conservative Party fund approved paying Mike Duffy's legal bills for this deal.
How could someone at the Conservative Party approve paying Duffy's legal bills if Nigel Wright acted alone?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, that question has been clearly answered.
What is not, of course, being answered is why in fact the Leader of the Opposition keeps changing his own story.
Yesterday he got up in this place and said that Mr. Duffy was the victim of extortion because people were trying to get him to pay back monies he never should have claimed in the first place. We expected Mr. Duffy to repay his money, just like I think his own party would expect him to repay damages in court.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned for your safety, that you might be impaled on the Prime Minister's increasing proboscis.
Did the Prime Minister offer Mike Duffy a guarantee that in turn for going along with the repayment scheme the Conservative-controlled Senate would let him off the hook?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question is there. I am reminded by that particular statement that the finding against the Leader of the Opposition was for libel.
Our view is very clear. The Senate has a choice in front of it. It has a motion in front of it. That motion suggests and says that the three senators who have clearly abused the public trust on these matters should be taken off the Senate payroll. On this side of the House, we firmly agree with that motion.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that is why the previous, clear question was so important and that is why Canadians notice that the Prime Minister did not answer it. I will repeat it.
Did the Prime Minister's Office offer Mike Duffy a guarantee that in return for going along with the repayment scheme, the Conservative-controlled Senate would let him off the hook?