Debates of Nov. 28th, 2013

Ethics

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, quite apart from Deloitte, the issue here is Senator Gerstein, and with him, the fraud squad in the PMO who pulled his strings. The Prime Minister needs to tell Canadians this: Does he condone attempted manipulation of a forensic audit, or tampering with evidence, or obstructing justice?

The Prime Minister says, if only he had known back in the spring what he knows now, all this bad stuff would not have happened. But Senator Gerstein knew. Indeed, he participated. Why does he still represent the government as chair of the Senate banking committee?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, and of course, as the RCMP documents he refers to state, Senator Gerstein is not under investigation. What this is is the fact that Senator Duffy accepted payment that he did not incur, and Nigel Wright, unfortunately, repaid those expenses. Both of these situations were wrong. Canadian taxpayers wanted those moneys refunded. Unfortunately, the Liberals tried to stand in the way of that. We fought for accountability from those three senators, and we got it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, unelected and unaccountable Conservative senators voted to shut down an investigation into audit tampering. This was an investigation into the actions of Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff. It involved a backroom deal to pay off improper expenses and whitewash an audit, but Conservative senators voted to sabotage their own investigation.

Did anyone in the Prime Minister's Office speak with these senators about this investigation?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again, what Deloitte said is that the audit was actually conducted with the utmost confidentiality.

At the same time, I have asked the Leader of the Opposition questions Canadians want to know, and they keep saying he refused the bribe. Now, if he did not open the envelope, how does he know that what he was getting was a bribe? He did not open the envelope, because he thought it was a bribe, but he did not open it. He was meeting with a mayor of a town. Could it not just have been an important correspondence? Something does not add up to me here. Either he opened it and knew it was a bribe, or he did not.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something does not add up for me either, because my question was about Conservative senators blocking an investigation into wrongdoing by the Prime Minister's Office and other Conservative senators.

Deloitte inexplicably claimed today that there was no interference or collusion in its audit. If that is the case, how did a PMO staffer know on March 21 what the audit said about Mike Duffy weeks before it was released?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Deloitte quite clearly said that the audit was done with the utmost confidentiality, and that confidentiality was maintained at all times.

Again, I contrast that with the Leader of the Opposition, who said that he did not reach out to police, because he had no proof that what he was being offered was a bribe. He did not know that what he was being offered was a bribe, because apparently he did not open the envelope, but then, later, he thought it was a bribe.

If you were meeting with the mayor of Laval, either you knew he was crooked, and that is why you did not open the envelope, and if you did, why were you meeting with him?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary should remember to direct his comments to the Chair and not directly at other members.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is like a bad scene from a comedy of some kind, but anyway.

Senator Gerstein and Deloitte employee Michael Runia are key players in the Senate expense scandal orchestrated by the Prime Minister's Office.

Who gave the order to stop the investigation into Gerstein's attempt to manipulate the expense audit? Did that order come from the Prime Minister's Office?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the audit, Deloitte confirmed that confidentiality was maintained at all times. What this comes down to, of course, is the fact that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he did not incur. I cannot understand why it is that the opposition seems to want to protect Senator Duffy.

It would be like the Leader of the Opposition accepting per diems when he lives in Stornoway and then saying that his home in Montreal is not his principal residence. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition does not do that, because that would not be appropriate.

I am hoping that the same standard he, I assume, maintains is the same standard he will fight for in the Senate.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why did the Conservative senators halt procedures within the Senate committee meant to shed some light on the role of Gerstein and Runia in the Senate expense scandal? The question is simple: why?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate what Deloitte said today in committee, that the utmost standard of confidentiality was maintained at all times with respect to this.

It comes back down to the fact that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he was not entitled to. As I just said, surely we can agree on that fact. If I can make the comparison, of course, the Leader of the Opposition lives at Stornoway. He has a residence in Montreal. It would be inappropriate for him to claim his residence in Montreal as a secondary residence and collect a per diem when he is living at Stornoway. I am sure he does not do that. That is why we want to stand up for the taxpayers and maintain that exact same standard.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what happened. Senator Gerstein was caught red-handed. He tried to manipulate Deloitte's audit process with the help of an accomplice within the company. He was aware of the Wright-Duffy affair and agreed with all of that.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what standard of ethics he is using to condemn Wright but protect Gerstein?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP documents quite clearly state that Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright are the subjects of this investigation. As I just said, we all know that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he was not entitled to accept. It would be wrong.

I guess the best way of comparing it, again, going back to the Leader of the Opposition, is that it would be inappropriate for him to claim an expense for his home in Montreal and call that his principal residence when he is living at the taxpayer-funded Stornoway home.

We do not think that was right. That is why our Senators fought so hard and why we supported accountability in the Senate.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if Gerstein did not do anything wrong, then neither did Wright.

The Conservatives need to explain why one was shown the door while the other is being protected.

I have a very simple question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs. Can he tell us when the Prime Minister last spoke to Gerstein?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would have no idea when the two last spoke.

Again, I am having trouble following this. I know the Leader of the Opposition refuses to answer this question, both in public and in the House. How did he know he was getting a bribe if he did not open the envelope? If he not open the envelope, why did the Leader of the Opposition not actually open the envelope? Would that not have helped 17 years ago?

Does the Leader of the Opposition regret, 17 years ago, not coming forward to the police? Yes or no.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been enormous political fallout for the Conservatives since they propped up Gerstein at the Conservative convention with his lines about Duffy. Now, with the RCMP affidavit, we know that Gerstein was a key negotiator in the attempt to whitewash the audit.

Can the Prime Minister's person over there tell us if anyone in the Prime Minister's Office has spoken with Gerstein in the last two weeks in an attempt to contain the fallout of the damage that has been done to their credibility?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to ask my colleagues when the last time was that they spoke to people. I am not sure how that is important or relevant to government business.

What I think is important and relevant to government business is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, 17 years ago, could have stopped massive corruption in Quebec. The story just does not seem to add up. He seems somewhat uncomfortable, because the Leader of the Opposition suggests he did not open the envelope when he was getting a bribe. He suggests that he did not accept the bribe.

It does not make sense. How does he know he was getting a bribe if he never opened the envelope?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know what to say after hearing that kind of bizarre claptrap, so I will just continue on.

Another key player in this is Benjamin Perrin. On May 21, Perrin said he never informed the Prime Minister about the negotiations taking place with Mike Duffy. Perrin was the Prime Minister's lawyer. The RCMP affidavit shows that he was one of the three key negotiators of a deal that is now being investigated for bribery and breach of trust.

Did the Prime Minister give Mr. Perrin, his lawyer, authorization to conduct these negotiations? If not, would they agree that Mr. Perrin overstepped his boundaries when he went ahead with this negotiation, yes or no?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again, Mr. Perrin is not the subject of any investigation. This is in respect to Senator Duffy accepting a payment that he did not incur, and Nigel Wright repaying that. That is what this is about.

Again, I tried to make the comparison, why we think it is so wrong on this side of the House and why we fought for accountability in the Senate, because it would be inappropriate to do that. It would be like the Leader of the Opposition accepting per diems at Stornoway and then saying that his home in Montreal was a secondary residence.

We know he has lived there a long time. I am sure he does not do that. That would be inappropriate and the Canadian taxpayers would think that is inappropriate. That is why we fought for accountability in the Senate so hard, and why we will continue to fight for taxpayers and accountability.

Government Contracts

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Well, Deloitte Canada has received $135 million from government contracts, and then they were hand-picked for the sole-source contract to investigate—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am having difficulty hearing the question, so I would appreciate members' holding off on their commentary until the member is finished asking the question.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, then Deloitte is hand-picked for this sole-source contract to investigate the improper expenses of Liberal and Conservative senators.

I want to ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates if he intends to conduct and schedule a hearing and investigation into the sole-source contract. Will he compel the attendance of senior officials from Deloitte? Will he use the authority of his chair to compel their attendance to answer these questions?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question, which was already raised this morning during a senate committee meeting. It seems as though a key witness was prevented from testifying.

However, as he knows, he is free to raise this question with a motion during a parliamentary committee meeting if he wants.

As chair of the committee, I work for the committee and I will examine whether the motion is in order and is in line with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the committee's mandate.

He is free to raise that question in committee. That is when I will decide whether it is in order. Then, it will be up to the committee to decide what to do with it, as usual. I work for the committee.

Ethics

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources stated, “I do not question the conduct of my chief of staff”. Chris Woodcock's misconduct includes: not disclosing his knowledge that Nigel Wright gave Senator Duffy $90,000, an action the RCMP considers criminal; taking part in the whitewash of a Senate report; and taking part in a cover-up.

Let us give the minister a mulligan. Does he really not question the conduct of his chief of staff, Chris Woodcock?