House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, that statement is totally false. The RCMP has said that there are two individuals who are under investigation.
When the Leader of the Opposition starts tarnishing the names of people who face no allegations whatsoever, I am reminded once again of the old saying, “When you throw mud, you lose ground”.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, Senator Irving Gerstein was deeply involved in the whole scheme to repay Mike Duffy's expenses, yet he is still a member of the Conservative caucus. Even more, he is still the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser.
Will the Prime Minister please explain to Canadians why Senator Irving Gerstein continues to enjoy his complete confidence?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there are two individuals who are under investigation, and there are a number of senators who broke rules or who disregarded rules.
Those senators have been dealt with harshly by the Senate of Canada, by the Conservative senators in the Senate of Canada. It is up to the leader of the Liberal Party to explain why the Liberal Party tries to protect such rule-breakers.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has shown that Irving Gerstein reached out to Deloitte to interfere with the audit on Mike Duffy's expenses and offered Conservative donor money to pay off those expenses, a deal that would have violated three sections of the Criminal Code.
With all these serious allegations of wrongdoing, why is the Prime Minister continuing to defend Irving Gerstein?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again the facts here are that Mr. Duffy claimed he had repaid his inappropriate expenses when in fact he had accepted a gift from Mr. Wright.
That gift was not properly disclosed and was in fact misrepresented. That is why those two individuals are under investigation, as they should be, and why we will continue to assist the RCMP in any and all—
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, non-answers like that explain why the Conservatives lost 40% of their vote across the country.
Senator Gerstein tried to interfere in the audit of Mike Duffy's expenses. He even offered Conservative donor money to make the problem go away, which apparently violates three sections of the Criminal Code.
Why does the Prime Minister still have confidence in Senator Gerstein?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has been clear. Two individuals are under investigation, and our government is co-operating fully.
Canadians do not agree with the Liberal Party, which is protecting senators who break the rules.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, we have asked this question a few times, but the Prime Minister has always refused to answer.
Did the Prime Minister know about the original plan from the PMO to repay Mike Duffy's illegal expenses using money from the Conservative Party? Did he know about that plan, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, again, I have been very clear on that.
It was my view from the beginning, as I told Mr. Duffy, that he should repay his own expenses. I did not suggest the party should repay them or that Mr. Wright should repay them or that anybody else should repay them.
Once again, I was told that Mr. Duffy would repay them. I was told he had repaid them, not anybody else. I could not be clearer on that fact.
Those are the facts. Of course, as we know, that was not true, and that is why two individuals are under investigation.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, he is still afraid to give a straight answer.
The Prime Minister's Office made nine separate promises to Mike Duffy in the deal to keep him quiet. Let us look at the other eight.
Did the Prime Minister know about the promise to pay Mike Duffy's legal bills, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have just said repeatedly “no” on that. In fact, as is well known, no such payment took place.
It was Mr. Wright who secretly paid Mr. Duffy. He gave him a gift and then allowed him to claim that he had repaid his expenses. That was obviously not correct, and that is why those two individuals are under investigation.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that question was about the legal fees.
Did the Prime Minister know that his staff negotiated an agreement to halt the Deloitte audit of Mike Duffy, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, just to clarify on the legal expenses, as I said before, I became aware of that on May 15. That was not a surprise to me, given that parties regularly provide legal assistance to their caucus members, just as the Leader of the Opposition's party has provided him with tens of thousands of dollars, in fact six figures' worth, of legal expenses.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is there.
As we know, Deloitte was retained by the Senate of Canada to do an audit, and Deloitte stands by the findings of its audit.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knew that his office negotiated an agreement to whitewash the Senate report on Mike Duffy and to not raise questions about his residence.
Will he admit it, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, the problem with this situation is that Mr. Wright's gift to Mr. Duffy was not properly disclosed.
For that reason, we took action, and those people are under investigation.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister know his office made a deal to have “a senior government source” tell the press that Mr. Duffy met the requirements to sit as a senator from P.E.I., yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, it is well known that there are many senators and members of Parliament who have more than one residence. That was not the issue in my mind. The issue was that Mr. Duffy had claimed expenses that he had not in fact actually incurred because he was living at a long-time residence. That is why I believed his actions were not appropriate and why he should repay the money he had taken from the Senate of Canada.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister know that his own office made a deal to have the Prime Minister himself repeat that same statement if ever he was asked, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, my position on this is very well known. There are many senators and members of Parliament who have more than one residence. That is not unusual. What is not appropriate in these circumstances is for somebody to claim an expense he did not actually incur. That is what Mr. Duffy did and why I told Mr. Duffy that I believed he should repay those inappropriate expenses.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister know that his office made a deal to allow Mr. Duffy to start charging taxpayers for his expenses once again if Senate rules were ever changed, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, my view on this has been very clear.
We have rules in both chambers of this House that cover legitimate expenses that members of Parliament and senators have when they travel, when they move around and when they do government business. I do not believe that any of those rules should ever be interpreted in a way that somebody would take an expense claim and get money back when they had not actually paid any money of their own out in the first place. That is inappropriate. It was inappropriate before, it is inappropriate now and it would be inappropriate under any future circumstances.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, let us try to get a perfectly clear answer to one question.
Did the Prime Minister know that his office ordered senators on the Board of Internal Economy to use the same media lines if they spoke publicly about the report?
Did they concoct those lines, yes or no?
