House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was philippines.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the record is very clear. From all documents, the sole responsibility for these actions rests with Mr. Wright and with Mr. Duffy. That is why these two individuals are under investigation. Mr. Wright has accepted his responsibility and co-operated fully. That is not the case for Mr. Duffy.
We will ensure that we provide all co-operation and assistance to ensure that those who are responsible are held accountable.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, on November 7 the Prime Minister claimed that his office was not under investigation. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that his office was not under investigation to the best of his knowledge.
In the 80 pages of court documents released today, the RCMP listed 12 top Conservative officials whose emails were being investigated. That list includes half a dozen staff from the Prime Minister's Office.
How many in the Prime Minister's Office have been under investigation? How many have to be under investigation before the Prime Minister admits that his office is indeed under criminal investigation?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, the documents make clear there are two individuals who are under investigation, Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy, as has been said from the outset of this affair.
Let me say specifically, what the RCMP says about the PMO. The RCMP investigator reports that he had “clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requested”. That is exactly what we have done.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that is nice reading. It just has nothing to do with the question.
Senator Gerstein was asked to pay for Duffy's fraudulent expenses. He was then asked to talk to Deloitte to try to manipulate the audit process.
Who ordered him to do everything in his power to fudge the results of the audit?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP clearly said that Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are the ones under investigation here. We obviously expect the RCMP to continue its work and we will provide assistance to ensure that these individuals are held accountable.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, according to RCMP affidavits, Senator Irving Gerstein, the Conservative Party money man, planned to use donors' money, illegally, to pay off Mike Duffy. He even picked up the phone to call Deloitte's to have it back off on audit, and he was not even a member of the audit committee.
Therefore, why is Senator Irving Gerstein a member of the Conservative caucus? In fact, why is he even a senator at all?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what is very clear from the documents that have been put into the courts is that this, again, is between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy.
What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister, as stated by the RCMP, had given clear orders to provide complete co-operation and assistance with this investigation, in contrast to the Liberals, who always protect the status quo.
We always stand up for taxpayers and the Prime Minister is, again, showing the type of leadership that Canadians have come to depend on: open and honest government. That is what they can always rely upon from Conservatives.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, under oath, a member of the RCMP told a judge that several crimes were committed in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada.
The RCMP also confirmed that Nigel Wright engaged in corruption in his official capacity as chief of staff and that Mr. Wright waited for the Prime Minister's approval before carrying out his plan.
Is the Prime Minister waiting for the RCMP to break down the front door of 24 Sussex before he tells Canadians the truth?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP has said confirms that the Prime Minister did not know about this. That is something the Prime Minister has been saying for months. Those members refuse to listen. Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. The RCMP says that it has absolutely no evidence that shows the Prime Minister knew.
Also, the Prime Minister has been saying, right from the beginning, that we would co-operate and assist the investigation in any way possible. Those were the orders given by the Prime Minister to his office, and the RCMP has confirmed that is what has happened.
An open, accountable, transparent government is what Canadians want. That is what they get from the Prime Minister day in and day out.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, Canadians realize the seriousness of this situation. An RCMP officer swore an affidavit before a judge stating that three crimes took place in the Prime Minister's Office. The RCMP swears that Nigel Wright acted corruptly in his official duties as the Prime Minister's chief of staff, but only after explicitly getting the Prime Minister's go-ahead.
Therefore, what is the Prime Minister waiting for? For the RCMP to kick down the door at 24 Sussex Drive before telling Canadians the truth?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP said was that the Prime Minister immediately ordered his PMO to co-operate and to assist with the investigation, and that is what it did. What it also said was that the Prime Minister did not know anything about this. What the Prime Minister has said is that had he known, he would have in no way endorsed this.
The Liberals know nothing about accountability. They have a leader who praises dictatorships. His main priority is the legalization of marijuana.
As for the member for Medicine Hat's outstanding question—
EthicsOral Questions
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order, please. I think just one member at a time needs to answer questions.
The hon. member for Halifax.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister explain how it was possible for him to claim last May that he had no knowledge of the legal agreement with Mike Duffy, when PMO emails released by the police show that Nigel Wright got authorization for the deal in February?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said to him, “Repay any expenses that you did not incur.” It has been quite obvious. Since February, he was told that. He then went on TV and told people he had paid and had taken a mortgage out on his home. That was wrong.
The RCMP confirmed that this Prime Minister did not know about the arrangement. Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Nigel Wright has to accept the consequences of what he has done. Senator Duffy should accept the consequences of what he has done, and the NDP and Liberals should stop defending the status quo.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question, so let us try again.
Documents from February 22 of this year say, “We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne”. This was about the Prime Minister's lawyer negotiating with Mike Duffy's lawyer.
What did the Prime Minister say to Nigel Wright on February 22 that gave him the go-ahead?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what he said, not only to Senator Duffy but to all of caucus, was, “Repay the expenses that you did not incur”. It is a very simple instruction. If they have an expense they did not incur, they had better repay it, or they are not going to get the support of this caucus. We did not tell Senator Duffy to go on TV and lie to people about how he had repaid those expenses. He made that decision on his own. Nigel Wright made the decision on his own. These two people are under investigation.
What is very clear is this: Had this Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such an action. The RCMP confirmed that, and the RCMP confirmed that this Prime Minister is assisting in every way possible.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, on February 22, Nigel Wright sent an email to Benjamin Perrin and other individuals at the Prime Minister's Office. In this email regarding the agreement to repay Duffy's illegal claims, Nigel Wright wrote, “I now have the go-ahead on point 3, with a couple stipulations”.
Who gave approval to Nigel Wright? Was it the Prime Minister?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, the Prime Minister not only told Senator Duffy but all of caucus, including MPs and senators, that if they had any inappropriate expenses, they had to repay those expenses. It has been very clear for months that this is the standard this Prime Minister has expected. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister did not know. That is in these documents. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister ordered his office to co-operate and to assist in any way possible. That is real leadership.
Members can contrast that to the leader of the NDP, who waited 17 years and could not figure out if he got a bribe, yes or no.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, but it does not answer the question.
Wright had approval with a couple stipulations. I would like to quote what Nigel Wright said about one of these stipulations:
I would like to understand who if anyone Sen. Duffy ever intends to inform about point 3.... I assume that I know the answer, but I would like it to be explicit. For its part, the Party would not inform anyone.
Was the Prime Minister aware of the third point of this repayment agreement?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, again, on February 13, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister, and he told Senator Duffy to repay any inappropriate expenses. That is what he was told. Senator Duffy then went on TV and told a different story. We know that was not true. We also know that the Prime Minister did not know. It was confirmed by RCMP documents that he did not know. Had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme.
What is also very important is the leadership this Prime Minister has shown in helping and assisting in the investigation and in making sure that the RCMP have access to whatever they need on this investigation. That is real leadership, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who waited 17 years.
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, online intimidation has been a factor in the tragic suicides of several Canadian teenagers. Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, Todd Loik, and all of those who have been tragically affected by cyberbullying.
Our government has been clear that there is a point where bullying goes beyond just bullying and becomes criminal behaviour. One of the most egregious forms of cyberbullying is the posting of intimate images of people against their will. Can the Prime Minister please update this House on the action our government will take to protect Canadians from online crime?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and her interest in this issue.
Too many young lives have been lost in Canada as a result of bullying, and more recently as a result of cyberbullying.
I have met with victims of these families, and we have pledged to take action. Today our government will be tabling legislation on these specific matters.
Let me just say, I think we all understand here that nothing we do can bring back the precious lives that have been lost, but hopefully the actions we are taking today will do some things to change things in the future and will also provide these families with some sense that their concerns are taken seriously and some sense of justice for their daughters.
