Debates of Nov. 29th, 2013

Sri Lanka

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our government's principled stand on human rights, the rule of law and freedom of religion, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. I represented Canada.

Sri Lanka has gone through years of terrible civil war, culminating in the defeat of the terrorist Tamil Tigers. Since then, Canada has been calling on the Sri Lankan government to initiate steps toward reconciliation and accountability on human rights.

My trips to Jaffna and Colombo unfortunately painted not only the lack of reconciliation, but an increasing disregard for Commonwealth principles. I met with key players of the Sri Lankan society, including the chief minister of Jaffna, all of whom reaffirmed this disturbing trend. Canada will continue to call upon the Sri Lankan government to uphold key Commonwealth principles.

While I was in the northern Jaffna peninsula, I laid a wreath at the Elephant Pass, on behalf of Canadians, in memory of all innocent Sri Lankans who were killed in the conflict.

Ethics

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was not one political observer, regardless of his affiliation, who did not criticize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's sorry spectacle. That speaks volumes about the judgment of the Prime Minister, who chose this member as a parliamentary secretary. You know things are bad when you starting missing the member for Nepean—Carleton's antics.

The party in power is facing serious criminal allegations. People could go to prison, and he is clowning around. He is mocking the very idea of accountability and transparency.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is insulting the intelligence of his constituents, Canadians and his colleagues. This has become clear in the House. Members who have not yet sold their souls to the amateur wheeler-dealers in the Prime Minister's Office are not very comfortable with the idea of applauding their colleague.

I encourage my colleagues who still have some respect for the House, for our institution, to join me in telling the parliamentary secretary to stop his antics and answer the questions.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, the CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices make clear that:

To ensure we maintain our independence, we do not pay for information from a source in a story.

When CBC's The National aired a report about U.S. activities during the G8 and G20, neither Peter Mansbridge nor Greg Weston disclosed that they had paid their source, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is a Brazilian-based former porn industry executive, now assisting Edward Snowden to leak national security information.

CBC only admitted to its cash for news scheme after The Wall Street Journal forced it out. CBC is trying to justify the violation of its own ethical standards by claiming that Greenwald is a freelancer.

Greenwald has strong and controversial opinions about national security. Of course, that is his right. However, when CBC pays for news, we have to ask why furthering Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than maintaining the public broadcaster's journalistic integrity?

Ethics

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister share with the Canadian public how much it will cost taxpayers to have three high-priced, Bay Street-linked law firms defending the PMO?

Why does the Prime Minister need experts in courtroom litigation? Is that where the Prime Minister expects to find himself soon?

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

Mr. Speaker, a clear answer is that the article the hon. member refers to is actually inaccurate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the week began with the PMO accusing itself of a cover-up and ended with Conservative senators blocking an investigation into whether Conservative senators tried to cover up an expense scandal involving yet other Conservative senators. No wonder the member has so much trouble explaining his government's actions.

Yesterday, Deloitte claimed there was no interference with their audit, so 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, as Deloitte said yesterday, quite correctly, that the utmost in confidentiality was maintained as this audit was undertaken.

I trust Deloitte. It has a fabulous reputation for the work it does, and as Deloitte said, full confidentiality was maintained at all times.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, PMO staffer Patrick Rogers sent an email on March 21 saying that the Deloitte audit will “...state that Duffy's lawyer did not provide information when requested. They were asked to complete the work by the end of March....”

How can the Conservatives claim the PMO did not know anything when a staffer was emailing about the contents of the audit in March?

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

Mr. Speaker, the audit was actually undertaken by Deloitte and not by the Prime Minister's Office. Deloitte has maintained that the audit was done with the utmost in confidentiality, and Deloitte supports that audit.

Canadians can have full confidence that the work that was done with respect to the audit was done confidentially and is an appropriate report.

Based on that, of course, that is why this government and the Conservative senators moved to have these three senators expelled from the Senate without pay.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how much is the Prime Minister's Office planning to spend to hire three expensive law firms to defend itself in the Senate affair?

Are the Conservatives hiring litigation experts with taxpayers' money because they expect they will soon have to defend themselves before the courts?

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, the headline is completely inaccurate.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Deloitte claimed that there was no interference or collusion in its audit of Mr. Duffy's expenses.

If that is the case, why did one—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is a translation problem.

It has been fixed, it is working now.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert has the floor.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Deloitte claimed that there was no interference or collusion in its audit of Mr. Duffy's expenses.

If this is the case, why did one of the staffers in the Prime Minister's Office know about the report's findings on March 21, several weeks before the report was released?

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

Mr. Speaker, Deloitte was in front of the Senate committee just yesterday. From what I understand, the three auditors who undertook this audit on behalf of the Senate maintain that full confidentiality was maintained at all times and that Canadians could have, and should have, confidence in the work that they did.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the RCMP to investigate a serious infringement of the Parliament of Canada Act.

The role played by Senator Gerstein and the Prime Minister's Office concerning the repayment of money to a senator contravenes this act.

When, and not if, the RCMP begins its investigation, will the government finally stop protecting Senator Gerstein and remove him from his position as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce?

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

Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein is not the subject of any investigation right now. The RCMP documents clearly outline that it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are being investigated by the RCMP for a number of infractions. As we have said constantly, we will continue to assist the RCMP as they move forward with this investigation.

The Prime Minister, as I have said also on a number of occasions, went back to his office and to ensure that the Prime Minister's Office co-operates and assists with the RCMP in this investigation and will continue to do so. I think that is the standard that Canadians expect, and that is the standard that they will continue to see from our government. l

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary maintains that there are only two people under investigation, and he disputes how many law firms have been hired by the Conservatives to defend.

My question for the Parliamentary Secretary is this: how many law firms have been hired, and which one is going to defend Senator Gerstein for his role in the cover-up in the PMO?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. On a daily basis, I am asked to get up in the House and I am asked a lot of questions. When I answer, on occasion the opposition gets all upset and some in the press get all upset with the way I answer questions. However, when there is a question like that, how can one answer a question like that, a question that is so completely disrespectful of this place?

There are two options: I could answer it back just as disrespectfully, or I could do what I am about to do and ignore it.

Justice

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there we have a model of respect for the institution.

Under section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is an offence to offer or promise compensation to a senator “for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House”.

In light of this, could the Attorney General explain why he has not asked the RCMP to investigate the actions of Senator Gerstein and certain former PMO staffers, as I have? Why do I have to do his job for him, and what are they hiding over there?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an odd question. The RCMP have been investigating this for a number of months. The RCMP have put in a number of documents, which have been referred to by the opposition on a number of occasions. Those same documents show that the RCMP is investigating Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy, Nigel Wright for repaying expenses that Senator Duffy accepted but did not incur.

Those are the people who are under investigation at this time. The documents quite clearly indicate that, and they also indicate the RCMP has been at this for a bit.

Ethics

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday testimony at the Senate confirmed that Irving Gerstein contacted Michael Runia about changing the Duffy audit, and then, yes, Michael Runia contacted the auditors, asking them to alter it. That makes Michael Runia perhaps the most important witness to the allegations of interference with the Duffy audit.

What possible justification could the Conservatives have for blocking the attempt to have Michael Runia testify under oath what he knows about blocking the Duffy audit?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, that is not what the senators heard yesterday in front of the committee. The senators heard from the three Deloitte auditors who confirmed that the audit was done with the utmost confidentiality, that no rules were broken, and that Canadians could have confidence in the work that they did.

I can only assume that the Senate decided, after hearing that from the people who actually did the audit, that nothing further was required to confirm the veracity of what was done by Deloitte.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Michael Runia contacted the Deloitte auditors, presumably to strong-arm them on behalf of the PMO into changing the Duffy audit.

How can they claim that because of the so-called Chinese wall that Deloitte held, there is no harm, no foul, in attempting to interfere with the investigation into wrongdoing, the improper expense claims, and then the audit into them? How low have their ethics sunk if they do not see what is fundamentally wrong with picking up the phone and trying to interfere with the work of an independent auditor into investigation of Senate claims?

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

Mr. Speaker, he is referring to the Senate committee yesterday. The Senate brought Deloitte in front of it to ensure that there was no interference, that the work that it did was kept in the utmost confidentiality, and that Canadians and the Senate in particular could also have trust in the work that Deloitte did.

Those three auditors went before the Senate yesterday. My understanding is that they confirmed that no information was given to anybody, that the work they did was done in full confidentiality, and, again, that the Senate could have confidence in the work that they did. I suspect that is why they decided that no further action was taken.