Debates of Nov. 5th, 2013

International Trade

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London West for his good work on the trade committee. Canada's commercial relationship with Honduras is growing, and this trade agreement will ensure that this relationship continues to grow.

We continue to expand Canada's trade opportunities in large and small countries around the world. Sadly, the NDP trade critic is quoted by the Huffington Post as saying that Honduras is not a key economy and has no value for Canada. It is shocking. He should say that to the Hondurans.

The NDP clearly has no credibility on trade.

Taxation

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today representatives of nearly 40 credit unions from across Canada are meeting on the Hill.

Credit unions are solid, dependable, and innovative. They are important to our economy. In 350 rural communities, the credit union is the only financial institution in town, but rural branches are at risk. In their budget, the Conservatives raised taxes on credit unions.

Will the government reverse its short-sighted decision to raise taxes?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, credit unions still have access to the lower small-business tax rate. That has not changed. We have simply eliminated an outdated tax subsidy from the 1970s, when the tax system was very different. No other small business received that special tax subsidy. In fact, Quebec eliminated a comparable subsidy in 2003.

Our government continues to be a strong supporter of the credit union system in Canada.

Government Advertising

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board documents tabled last week show that the finance department has spent an additional $15.25 million shilling for the economic action plan, bringing the total to $113 million since the economic action plan's inception.

Now the government defends this largesse by explaining that the ads are necessary to inform Canadians about some program or issue, yet its own survey indicates that they have not been successful in either directing traffic to the website or to calling the advertised toll-free phone number.

In this time of fiscal restraint, when will the government stop wasting taxpayers' money on this self-serving drivel?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have some new friends on the NDP benches, I notice.

I would remind the hon. member that it is the responsibility, it is a duty, of the government to communicate on important programs and services and how they are available to Canadians. Obviously, advertising is a key component of how we can do that. We treat all taxpayer money with the utmost respect. We require government business to be done at the lowest possible cost.

I am surprised the hon. member did not key in on another important fact that was found in those documents as well: the budget deficit is $6.9 billion lower than projected. Well done, Minister of Finance.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency José Adonis Lavaire, Minister of Industry and Commerce of the Republic of Honduras.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it very distasteful for the minister to answer a very important question by turning words that I never—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Hold on. Hold on. Let me repeat this. He put words in my mouth that I do not think my leader is going to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We have had points of order raised in the past about things said in preambles to questions or in responses. The member knows that it is not a matter of a point of order but is more a matter of debate. If he takes issue with what the minister said, he can maybe try to address it in a future question period. I do not see what the point of order is if he is having a dispute over what may or may not have been said.

I will ask the member to take his seat now, because I do not hear what the point of order actually was.

Foreign Affairs

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled: one, Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, done in Ottawa on November 5, 2013; two, Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013; and three, Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013. An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt is rising on a point of order. As I said, I did not hear anything earlier that he raised that gave me an indication that it was a point of order, so if he could quickly explain to the Chair what he feels the point of order is he is raising, I will give him the floor again, but I hope that he is not engaging in further debate.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wish that the minister would rise and withdraw what he said, absolutely. They were not my words—

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Charlottetown has five minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue to speak to the motion currently before the House, a motion that, if passed, would seek to have the Prime Minister of Canada testify under oath about what he knew about the $90,000 payment.

I have a couple of points in relation to the motion. First of all, this is not about Senate reform. This is about a scandal that has gone into the Prime Minister's Office and has implicated those closest to him, those who report directly to him. It is not a motion about Senate reform.

Second, the motion does not preclude a wider examination by the committee. It is the House that has the power to order the Prime Minister to appear before the committee. That is what the motion seeks to do. There is nothing to preclude the committee from engaging in a wider examination, and from inviting and then ordering other witnesses to appear. Indeed, it would appear that is what is in the interests of Canadians.

It could very well be that one of the versions that we heard in the House from the Prime Minister is indeed accurate, but that still leaves the question of the culture within the Prime Minister's Office, apparently a place where it is okay to give the boss plausible deniability while paying off a sitting parliamentarian to obstruct a forensic audit, while paying, from the Conservative Party, the legal fees directly associated with that.

I can say, as someone who practised law for 17 years, it is quite common for cheques to pass between lawyers. However, it is also quite common that when a cheque passes, it is impressed with a trust and that trust could be in the form of a formal trust agreement, but it could simply be done through an exchange of letters.

I believe that the inquiry that we seek before the committee would allow us to get behind any trust conditions that were impressed upon that $90,000 cheque. It bears remembering that we still have not seen the cheque. It bears remembering that we know that one legal bill involved in this transaction was $13,000. Legal fees in the city of Ottawa could be up to $500 an hour. If we assume that this is a top-shelf lawyer billing the top rate, there were at least 26 hours put into negotiating this. I find it hard to imagine that a trust cheque went from one lawyer's office to another without some sort of an agreement if not only an exchange of letters, which is very common in the legal profession. It says, “This cheque is impressed with the following trust conditions and it will not be released until these conditions are met”.

The Canadian public deserves to know the terms of those trust conditions. I have little doubt that they exist. It appears that the documentation, according to the access to information request that has been filed and the order paper questions that have been filed, does not exist within the office of the Prime Minister. However, miraculously, Senator Duffy was able to produce a binder full of documents.

These questions are on the minds of Canadians. There are so many things that happen here in the House of Commons that just happen within the Ottawa bubble and that are constrained to the Ottawa bubble. That is not the case with this dispute.

Canadians are paying attention. Canadians want answers. Canadians deserve the truth and I sincerely hope that there will be some Conservative backbenchers who will listen to their constituents, who will stand and support the motion and support what their constituents want. They want the truth. They want transparency. They deserve it and this is the time for it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my friend from the Liberal Party.

Getting the Prime Minister to actually answer some questions with regard to this scandal, which goes right to the heart of his office, is not just in the interests of New Democrats but of all Canadians.

We have seen time and again, and we saw it minutes ago in question period, the Prime Minister refusing to answer the most straightforward and simple questions. There can only be a couple of options: either he is unable and he does not have the information or he is simply unwilling because he knows that telling the straight, consistent version will condemn him in this scandal.

However, the challenge for the Prime Minister, we argue, and my friend did this as well, is that everyone involved in the Wright-Duffy affair is intimately connected to the Prime Minister, so it goes to the heart of his own ethics and judgment.

The Prime Minister was only able to get away with this, and Mike Duffy was only able to do the purported theft, and Wallin, Brazeau and all these guys, because the Senate is so dysfunctional at its heart that it not only allows for this kind of behaviour, it even encourages it. There is no accountability at all.

All we have heard from my friend's party so far about getting at the very roots of this issue is to simply appoint more Liberal senators. Some of them have ended up in jail for some of the same misdeeds, so clearly that is not a solution.

While we want the Prime Minister telling the truth and that is what has to happen in a consistent way, we also need to understand that this is a scandal that, at its heart, is the making of the Prime Minister's terrible judgment. It is also the making of the institution down the hallway that allows parties to put in failed candidates; former and current bagmen, as they themselves admitted; and people who do not rise to a high enough ethical standard to get elected. They are stuffed down there to help out the parties.

Does my friend think it is appropriate behaviour for senators, appointed by their parties, to use taxpayer funding to fundraise on behalf of those parties, to use that taxpayer money to raise funds for either the Liberal or Conservative parties? It is a very simple, straightforward question.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Much of the preamble of that question, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I agreed with. However, as we have seen so many times in this debate, it appears, certainly in the NDP, that members either want to expand the scope or talk about something other than the motion.

The motion is that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be instructed to examine the conduct of the Prime Minister's Office regarding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy's expenses and that the Prime Minister be ordered to appear under oath.

That is what we are talking about. We are talking about conduct in the Prime Minister's Office. We are talking about that dozen or so people. We are talking about the culture within the office that makes it okay to write a script for a senator to mislead Canadians. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about rot within the Prime Minister's Office. That is what the motion is about. That is what we are here to debate. That is what we are putting forward.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Charlottetown. He is calling on the members opposite in the Conservative Party to support the motion.

I note that there are hon. members in the other place who are calling for due process with the motion in the Senate, and are looking for a proper investigation before there is a decision on repercussions and punishment for the senators. My colleague is assuming there may be some hon. members in the Conservative Party who want to see the air cleared. The air was not cleared at the recent convention in Calgary.

What would my hon. colleague from Charlottetown say to the members opposite so that they could report to their constituents about their obligations and their responsibility in helping to clear the air on this very messy scandal in the Prime Minister's Office?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members opposite would be able to say to their constituents that they have faith in the Prime Minister, that they believe the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister has nothing to hide and therefore he should testify under oath.

That would afford an opportunity to clear the air. That would afford an opportunity for Conservative backbenchers, who rode into Ottawa on the white knight of transparency and accountability, to hold true to the principles that got them here, and not display the jading that comes with being in power too long.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do deserve the truth about Senate abuse. The member for Charlottetown complained at the beginning of his speech that Mike Duffy was not a resident of P.E.I. when appointed. We know in our party, from 1993 to 2003, Percy Downe worked for the Liberal prime minister's office, then he was chief of staff to Prime Minister Chrétien. He lived in Ottawa for a decade during this time.

Could the member for Charlottetown confirm that Percy Downe was a resident of P.E.I. when he was appointed as a senator, or was he like Mike Duffy, he had a cottage there and became a resident afterwards?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the member that Percy Downe can be found on the boardwalk in Victoria Park any Saturday or Sunday morning, walking his dog. He can be found at the farmer's market virtually every single Saturday morning. Percy Downe is widely respected by Islanders. He is one of ours, absolutely. He rose to great heights in the Prime Minister's Office. It is a source of great pride for Islanders. To have someone with the integrity of Percy Downe representing Prince Edward Island in the red chamber is something we are very proud of.

To attempt to stand up in the House and slam someone of the character of Percy Downe is absolutely shameful. Any right-minded Prince Edward Islander would stand up for Percy Downe.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for months I have been receiving hundreds and hundreds of emails from constituents of Thunder Bay—Superior North calling for Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau to be removed from the Senate. Many were asking that the Senate be removed from Parliament. However, recently that has shifted to “What did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it? Is he telling the truth or not and when will he come clean with whether he is in the right or wrong? When will he be more open in revealing the whole truth in this matter?”

I would just like to support the comments of the member calling for the passage of the motion, which is simple and straightforward. I absolutely agree with it.