House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.

Topics

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is so tough on Mike Duffy that he asks Conservative members to pay for his lawyers. That is not right.

Is the Prime Minister aware of other cheques that people from his office or from the Conservative Party wrote and sent to Nigel Wright? Are there other cheques? Does he know or not?

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about writing cheques. How about the fact that his leader not only accepted repayment for over $100,000 for his legal fees, but also accepted repayment of a judgment against him for libel?

It goes even further. The member's leader is so tough that he forgot about 17 years' worth of bribes that he was offered. Imagine what the people of Quebec could have avoided had he only opened his mouth 17 years ago? The great prosecutor forgot to mention that 17 years ago.

While I am on my feet, let us talk about the member for Beauce, who raised over $100,000 for his local charity—

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the incredible ridiculousness of the answers we are hearing from the Conservative Party.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that all—and I mean all—of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen's expenses were legitimate, justified and appropriate, yes or no?

EthicsOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is that the member was elected as a federalist and at the same time he is making donations to a party that wants to remove Quebec from Canada. That is what is really ridiculous. While I agree with nothing the Bloc members say, at least they are honest in the fact that they go in front of people and are honest.

What is clearly ridiculous is that the member thinks it is funny to donate to a party that wants to break up Canada. There is nothing funny about that. We will work to a bigger, better, stronger, more prosperous Canada, even with him in the House.

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was Conservatives who appointed the senators and Conservatives who tried to cover it up afterwards.

In his statement to the Senate, Mike Duffy claimed that he received direction and coaching from the Prime Minister's Office about his RBC loan. Did Chris Woodcock tell Mike Duffy to use a fake story about a bank loan when he spoke to the media?

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that Senator Duffy went in front of Canadians and said that he had repaid the money for inappropriate expenses. We know that he did not do that.

As I said the other day, Senator Duffy is a guy who calls himself the “Duffinator”. Somehow the kids in short pants terrified the Duffinator. Had I known that kids in short pants terrified the Press Gallery so much, I would be walking like this all the time, because apparently kids in short pants are to Mike Duffy like garlic to a vampire. He cannot take it. Give me a break.

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, let us review. The Conservatives show no contrition, take no responsibility, and everything bad that happened is someone else's fault. The Prime Minister once believed in Senate reform, but now even Preston Manning says the Conservatives have become an embarrassment.

Why does the Prime Minister now say it is simply a case of the Senate reforming itself?

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, here they go again, trying to defend these three senators and disgraced Liberal Senator Mac Harb.

They are not the victims here. These senators are not the victims. It is the Canadian taxpayers who are the victims. There is a motion in front of the Senate that would suspend these three senators, yet those members come in the House day after day and try to defend these three senators.

When it comes to reform of the Senate, we want to reform the Senate. We have motions in front of the Supreme Court of Canada that will give us a road map to do that. We want a reformed Senate and we are going to fight for a reformed Senate, because that—

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works, but in her capacity as the Receiver General for Canada.

Can she tell the House today if the repayment of Mike Duffy's expenses in the amount of $90,172 was received by the Office of the Receiver General, and if so, when specifically did that repayment arrive?

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, on February 13 the Prime Minister was very clear to everyone, including Senator Duffy, that if they had inappropriate expenses, they should repay those inappropriate expenses.

Senator Duffy then went on TV and said he took out a loan at the Royal Bank. We know that was not true. We learned that Nigel Wright actually paid that back. Nigel Wright has said that it was inappropriate to do so; at the same time, the Prime Minister said that had he known anything about this, he would in no way have endorsed such a scheme.

Nigel Wright is accepting accountability for what he has done. He knows that what he has done is wrong. There is a motion in front of the Senate that would suspend the three senators and bring accountability to taxpayers. We hope that senators will support us in that, and that the Senate will actually pass—

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Public Works is fully capable of answering such a simple question in her capacity as the Receiver General for Canada.

The Receiver General is responsible for accepting all payments to the government. The Prime Minister said on May 9, “Senator Duffy some months ago repaid the money”. That means a cheque went through her office.

Would the Minister of Public Works table in the House today a true copy of the cancelled cheque that the Prime Minister claims he received before May 9? The Prime Minister's credibility stands on the line, based on her answers.

EthicsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that would open up the accountability of our unions when it comes to the payments that they make. Now we learn about this member here, and I guess that is the problem here. If it was the unions making this repayment, NDP members would probably have no problem with it, because we know how excited they are about accepting illegal union donations on that side of the House.

At the same time, what we said is this: if anyone has inappropriate expenses, they have to repay them. There is a motion in front of the Senate right now that would suspend these three senators. We want the Senate to deal with it.

On this side of the House, we are fighting for the taxpayers and we are going to continue to do that.

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, the latest PMO story is that the $13,000 of legal fees that the Conservatives gave to Mike Duffy was because of the audit and not the secret deal. It should be easy to say exactly what the fees were for, because the PMO has the invoice. Senator Gerstein says the fees were paid because Nigel Wright requested it in his role as chief of staff.

Did Nigel Wright also ask the party to pay Wallin and Brazeau's legal fees, or was the payoff only for those covering up PMO fraud? Will the government release the invoice, or do we have to wait for Senator Duffy to do it?

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, as we said last week in the House, the party—and we are not unusual in this—does offer members of its caucus who are in good standing legal assistance if it is required. On the same token, we learned on May 15 that Senator Duffy did not actually pay back those expenses and that it was done by Nigel Wright. That was inappropriate. Mr. Wright has accepted the consequences of that decision. At the same time, there is a motion in the Senate that would suspend these three senators without pay.

That is the level of accountability that we want. The Liberals in the Senate need to get out of the way and let Canadians have that level of accountability.

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can assure our colleague that he is indeed being consistent in his answers, which are equally pathetic in both French and English. Let me try one more time.

On June 5, the Prime Minister wrongly told the House that only Nigel Wright was aware of the $90,000 cheque he gave to Mike Duffy. However, Senator Gerstein, the Conservative Party's bagman, admitted this weekend that he knew, which contradicts the Prime Minister's story.

Did he inform the Prime Minister of this last spring? If not, why not? The question is simple in French.

It is easy in English. Can we have an answer?

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I will not take any lessons in being a successful politician from the member who just asked that question.

This is what the debate has come down to in this House. They know that they are not on the side of Canadians. They know that they are not on the side of Canadians who want these senators suspended without pay, so now they are going to start insulting me. If it makes them feel better to insult me because I do not speak great French, oh well, they can go ahead.

In the final analysis, what we want is accountability. They need to get out of the way in the Senate so that the Senate can pass this motion. If I could say it as well in French, I would, but I cannot; however, soon I will be able to, because I am taking lessons.

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that no one is damaging his reputation more than he is himself.

Who is telling the truth: the Conservative Party's bagman, Senator Gerstein, who said he told Nigel Wright that the party would never pay Mike Duffy's expenses, or Nigel Wright, who told the RCMP that the Conservative Party was prepared to pay if the expenses were under $32,000?

These two sides of the story contradict one another. Which version is right? Who is lying: Gerstein or Wright? Is my colleague going to avoid answering the question yet again?

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister, I could care less what that gentleman thinks about how I answer questions in the House because I will always answer the questions that are put to me in the way that protects the Canadian taxpayer, unlike the Liberals and that particular former leader who is surrounded by individuals who have illegal campaign debts. He is not so worried about that, is he? Perhaps he would have that same level of aggression with those people who have those illegal debts.

On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for the taxpayer. Over there, the Liberals are going to try to protect the status quo. They had an option: protect the taxpayer, pass the motion in the House. That is what they—

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Welland.

EthicsOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been hoping to see some sense of contrition from Conservatives, some sense they understand. These were Conservative senators who ripped off the taxpayer and Conservatives who hatched this cover-up, but instead we see no sign.

Does the Prime Minister realize that when he changes his story from one day to the next, people have questions?

I ask a simple question. Did Nigel Wright resign or did he quit?

EthicsOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, again, this coming from a member who stands behind a leader who, for 17 years, did not say a word about the fact that he was offered a bribe, and we know what the consequences to the people of Quebec were for that decision over 17 years. This coming from a party that accepted illegal union donations. All 103 of them are responsible for that decision.

Here is the reality. Nigel Wright did something that was wrong. He is prepared to accept the consequences of those actions. It does not matter what party one is in, do not accept payments that one is not entitled to. It is pretty simple.