Debates of Nov. 5th, 2013

Ethics

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, as we have said before, political parties do quite frequently provide legal assistance to members of their caucus in good standing, as in fact has been the case for the Leader of the Opposition.

My instructions and my views on the matter of Mr. Duffy's inappropriate expenses were clear: that he should repay those expenses. That is what I was told had been done. That is what the Canadian public was told was done. When that turned out not to be the truth, I took my responsibility and made the appropriate changes in my office.

The government urges the Senate to do the same thing and take Mr. Duffy and others off the public payroll.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, right, so let me get this straight.

Gerstein knew about the scam, but he gets to stay in the Conservative caucus. Nigel Wright told the police that Senator Gerstein signed off on the original plan.

The question for us now in that case is: Is the Prime Minister today saying that Nigel Wright lied to the RCMP?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight.

The Leader of the Opposition apparently has some difficulty with some legal assistance being provided to members of the Conservative caucus, but he apparently has no difficulty at all in getting literally six figures worth of legal assistance from his party, even having his party pay court-awarded damages against him in a court case he lost. That is something for him to explain.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a concept he has a hard time with. Nevertheless, we are talking about the Prime Minister's Office, in other words, him and his accountability.

Was the Prime Minister aware of the initial plan hatched by his chief of staff and his chief fundraiser to reimburse Senator Duffy's expenses with Conservative Party money? Was he aware of Senator Gerstein's plan, yes or no?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my position has been clear from the beginning. I told Mr. Duffy that I expected him to reimburse his inappropriate expenses. I was told that that was what happened.

As it turns out, that is not really what happened. That is why Mr. Wright is no longer on the public payroll. Mr. Duffy should not be either.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, was PMO communications officer Stephen Lecce involved in coming up with the cover-up story for Mike Duffy?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is now just throwing out names and making allegations against individuals without even the slightest piece of evidence. He has no inclination that is true at all.

We know whose actions are in question here. Mr. Wright has accepted responsibility for his actions. He has accepted the penalties for that and is under investigation.

Mr. Duffy and the senators who, quite frankly, abused the public trust by taking money when they should not have taken it are the ones who should be dealt with most severely, and that is what we expect the Senate to do.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about his.

Nigel Wright says that Irving Gerstein knew about the $90,000. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that others knew as well. If this story is true, and since these people all knew, since they allowed him to make false statements in Parliament and since all of these people participated in what the Prime Minister calls a deception against him, then why have none of these people been fired?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Wright has acknowledged that these were his actions, that he took them himself using his own resources, and he executed them. He is held responsible for those actions, as he should be, and as should obviously the senators who took the money from the taxpayers in the first place.

Mr. Duffy, who is apparently still not out any money for having actually taken money that he never actually spent in the first place, still has all that money, which is why the Senate should take the actions that are appropriate.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of “actually”s, but no answers.

When the news of the $90,000 pay-off to Mike Duffy first broke, the Prime Minister said that Nigel Wright gave Mike Duffy, according to the Prime Minister, a “personal cheque”. After that first day, the Prime Minister never repeated that particular phrase again. He said instead that Nigel Wright used his own “resources”. So it was his own resources afterwards, and at the beginning it was a personal cheque. Who told the Prime Minister to stop saying “personal cheque”? Why did that part of the story change? Why was it important?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the Leader of the Opposition is trying to assert that in any way the money of the Prime Minister's Office or the money of the government was used to pay Mr. Duffy, that is completely incorrect. It was Mr. Wright himself using his own resources who paid Mr. Duffy, and then obviously Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy allowed the Canadian public to be misled on what had actually occurred.

As I have said repeatedly, Mr. Wright has acknowledged that and accepted responsibility. He is no longer on the public payroll. One would think that the individual who still has the $90,000 in his pocket inappropriately would be removed from the public payroll, and it is about time the Senate did so.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein obviously had discussions about the cover-up with Nigel Wright. Wright says so, the police say so and Senator Gerstein has confirmed it.

He has also confirmed that he authorized payment of Duffy's legal costs on the request of the PMO. What was that money actually for? Duffy's legal costs were inextricably connected to the cover-up. If Senator Gerstein thought he was paying for something else, something legitimate, are Duffy's lawyers being sued for false pretences to get the money back, and will the government table the itemized invoice detailing the $13,560?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have said repeatedly in the House, of course our party, like all parties, does provide legal assistance to its members when they are in good standing with our party. At the same time, we are learning that the Liberal leader is actually now apparently telling his senators that they should abstain from making a decision on this in the Senate. As we have been saying for weeks, the Liberals will fight really hard for the status quo, but when it comes to fighting for taxpayers, they abstain.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for three months, from February to May, the Prime Minister claims he never noticed how his orders about Mike Duffy's expenses were being implemented; nor was he ever briefed; nor did he ever ask a question. He says he saw Duffy on television talking about a mortgage to repay the $90,000, but that story was a lie. Duffy says he was told to lie by the Prime Minister's Office. Did anyone in the PMO counsel Mike Duffy to lie? Has the Prime Minister asked the question?

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

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, standing up for Mike Duffy, standing up for these three disgraced senators and disgraced former Liberal senator, Mac Harb. Now we know why it is they are fighting so hard for the status quo, that they are even going the distance. They are going the distance on this one, listening to the Liberal leader who is trying to force his Senate colleagues to abstain, not to make a decision nor stand up for taxpayers.

We have been very clear that these senators should be removed. They accepted money they did not earn. They should be removed, without pay, from the Senate. We hope the Senate will deal with it immediately.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigators are looking for the PMO email chain outlining the lie about Duffy's mortgage. It would shatter the government's integrity. That search for evidence also raises serious issues about all the other documents related to the cover-up. In access to information requests, order paper questions and other inquiries, the government has said, incredibly but repeatedly, that there is no paper trail.

Can the Prime Minister categorically assure Canadians that since February 13 no evidence has been removed from the government premises and nothing has been destroyed?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have said, and we will continue to say, that we will continue to work with authorities as they investigate this.

The Environment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner must be pretty tired of repeating himself because in yet another scathing report he found “a wide and persistent gap between what the government commits to do and what it is achieving”. In other words, the Conservatives are all talk and no action.

The Conservatives have allowed the backlog for species at risk strategies to grow beyond a decade. More inaction means that more species will disappear. Does the minister understand that neglect and mismanagement is not an ecosystem recovery strategy?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting and preserving our rich biodiversity. That is why we announced our government's intent to introduce an emergency protection order for the sage grouse. Thanks to our action, more than 60% of the recovery documents have been posted in the last three years. Our record speaks for itself.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the minister agrees with the recommendations, but if the recommendations are not applied, what is the point?

Ecosystems and endangered species are not adequately protected. The Conservatives have reduced our scientific capacity, which is preventing us from doing the proper planning, oversight and management. In addition, this is supposed to be one of their priorities. We can only imagine what happens with issues that are not a priority for them.

What does the minister actually intend to do to straighten out this mess?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting and preserving our rich biodiversity, which is why budget 2012 increased funding for species at risk. That is why our government announced that it will be unveiling a new national conservation plan. That is why we have announced our government's intent to introduce an emergency protection order for the sage grouse.

Pensions

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have once again pointed out the urgent need to reform the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan.

Last week, they agreed on four principles to update those plans and guarantee secure retirement income for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

Does the Minister of Finance support those four principles? If not, which ones is he opposed to?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada pension plan reform continues to be examined by our government, in conjunction with our provincial counterparts. We share the concerns of employees. We share some of the concerns of employers. We also share the concerns of some of the provinces when they say that this is not the time to add extra burden. We are still in a time of fragile fiscal recovery.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the Canada pension plan improved. They do not want more studies. The provinces agree. Seniors agree. Experts agree. Why are the Conservatives standing in the way of progress?

With Canada's population rapidly aging, ensuring a secure retirement is a major policy challenge. Provinces and experts agree with the NDP: strengthening CPP is the prudent thing to do and reform now will avoid painful consequences down the road.

Canadians are rightly worried about their retirement. What is the minister waiting for? Why will the government not act?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we do continue to look at Canada pension plan reform.

I can assure the House, the NDP's plan to double Canada pension premiums, while the economy is still fragile, is not a moderate proposal.

Despite the NDP's risky schemes, we continue to stand up for retirement and for seniors during the global recovery.