Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2013

Ethics

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives claim that this is all Nigel Wright's fault, the RCMP is investigating the actions of over a dozen different Conservatives.

Senator Stewart Olsen told the police that no one ordered her to whitewash the Senate report, but in an email to Nigel Wright, she wrote, “Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked...”.

Will the senator face any consequences from the Prime Minister for making these misleading statements to the RCMP?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, and as I have said on a number of occasions in the House, each of us as parliamentarians, whether we are in the House of Commons or elevated to the Senate, is in charge of making our own decisions with respect to the files that we handle.

At the same time, the RCMP continues to investigate, and I trust that it will get the information it requires.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on June 21, Carolyn Stewart Olsen told the police that the Senate report on Mike Duffy was prepared without any input from the Prime Minister's Office. However, the RCMP's documentation shows that, on the contrary, she was given instructions by employees of the Prime Minister's Office. Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy suffered consequences as a result of their actions.

What consequences will be faced by Senator Stewart Olsen, who was caught lying in her testimony to the police?

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

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is continuing to investigate this matter. What is also quite clear is that the Prime Minister's Office is continuing to assist the RCMP in this investigation, but also, the RCMP has identified Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy as the main subjects of this current investigation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Stewart Olsen told the RCMP that she remembered communicating with Nigel Wright only once, at a meeting last April, to provide him with an update on the audit. However, the email record clearly shows that she was in contact with him on a fairly regular basis. This once again proves that she lied to the authorities.

How is her behaviour more acceptable than Mr. Wright's or Mr. Duffy's? Why is she getting the royal treatment like Gerstein?

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

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the emails she refers to are part of the hundreds of emails that were released by the Prime Minister's Office. As we have said, the Prime Minister's Office would be assisting, and that is the standard we have continued to see. At the same time, the RCMP is investigating. It is looking into this. Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright are the main focus of the investigation right now, and we trust that the RCMP will continue its work.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the recent Conservative convention, Senator Irving Gerstein said that he had never approved the use of party money to repay Mike Duffy. However, that is also a lie. Last winter, he approved the repayment of Mike Duffy's legal expenses and his inappropriate claims. Senator Gerstein was even prepared to write Mr. Duffy a cheque for $30,000.

Why is Senator Gerstein allowed to lie when Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright are not?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party did not pay back the expenses of Senator Duffy. As the Prime Minister has said in the House on a number of occasions, it would not be unusual for the party to assist members if they require legal assistance. It is the exact same standard the Leader of the Opposition seemed to have used when he asked his party to pay his legal expenses, unlike our side. We do not pay the judgments of hundreds of thousands of dollars, like the Leader of the Opposition asked his party to pay for.

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

That is not all, Mr. Speaker. Irving Gerstein did not just lie. He also tried to manipulate the audit report of Senate expenses.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how many times Senator Gerstein called his accomplice at Deloitte, Michael Runia, to talk about this audit?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, I would not have any information with respect to how many times Senator Duffy called. I noted that in the emails that were received by the RCMP, it would appear to be one time, but I have not spoken to Senator Duffy with respect to this particular matter. That would obviously be inappropriate, in light of the fact that there is an RCMP investigation going on.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to believe that the Privy Council of Canada would fumble a request from the RCMP to gain access to Ben Perrin's emails. He is the key link between the Prime Minister and the cover-up. He negotiated the five-point deal with Mike Duffy, and he was involved in the negotiation of the $90,000 payoff.

Now that his emails have been suddenly liberated, will the government tell us, when was the last time the Prime Minister spoke with his legal counsel, Ben Perrin?

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

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I would have no knowledge of when the Prime Minister last spoke to Mr. Perrin, but what is very clear also, again today, is the level of co-operation the Prime Minister's Office is providing to the RCMP. When the Privy Council followed up and found its mistake in not having previously released Ben Perrin's emails, the Prime Minister's Office immediately took the initiative to make sure that the RCMP had access to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be helpful to my friend from Oak Ridges—Markham, but if he does not know the answers, then why are the Conservatives putting him up? Is he not their spokesman?

It seems awfully strange that the government would tell the RCMP it deleted the emails of the Prime Minister's legal counsel, and then when push comes to shove, the emails reappear. Is it the Conservatives' policy to make the electronic legal correspondence of the Prime Minister's lawyer disappear, or do they only disappear emails from people who were involved in the Duffy cover-up?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the assistant secretary to the cabinet was very clear with respect to the unfortunate error that occurred on this. There are of course Treasury Board guidelines in place that govern how emails are handled when employees leave. However, again, as soon as these emails were discovered, Privy Council contacted the RCMP to ensure it had access to these emails.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is an issue of competency, maybe the Conservatives want to invite Dalton McGuinty over to help them figure out how to deal with their email problems in the PCO.

If the Conservatives cannot explain how the legal emails to the Prime Minister's lawyer would suddenly disappear, and now they thought which was lost, as the Bible says, has suddenly been found, maybe we will go to a simpler question.

When the Prime Minister got rid of his lawyer in March 2012, was Ben Perrin fired, or did he leave on his own accord? Under what terms did Ben Perrin leave the Prime Minister's Office?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Ben Perrin left the Prime Minister's Office to seek a career as a professor at, I believe, the University of British Columbia. I would invite the hon. member to Google his name and see at which institution he is working.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that Michael Runia, senior partner at Deloitte, interfered in the Duffy audit by calling the lead forensic auditor on the file. Mr. Runia is also the auditor of the Conservative Fund Canada and he made that call because Senator Irving Gerstein put him up to it.

To help the Senate investigate this breach in the integrity of its audit, will the government support calling Mr. Runia to testify before a Senate hearing?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the Senate is in control of its own affairs and will do what it deems important.

However, what we saw last week was the Senate Board of Internal Economy invite the three auditors who were in charge of this audit in front of it. It asked to ensure that the audit was done with complete confidentiality in that Canadians and, equally important, that the Senators could have confidence in the work they did. Those three auditors confirmed the same and it would appear the Senate was comfortable with that answer and has taken no further action.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite these serious allegations, Senator Gerstein is still the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking and Commerce. Last week in committee, Conservative senators blocked a motion to hear testimony from Michael Runia, bizarrely claiming it was not their role to investigate the integrity of an audit that they themselves had commissioned.

Will the government therefore agree to support a Liberal Senate motion to hear testimony from Mr. Runia and will it ask Senator Gerstein to give testimony as well?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure if there was anything in that question about administrative responsibility of the government. It sounds like maybe a question to be posed in the other place.

I see the hon. member for Ottawa South has a supplementary item. I encourage him to ensure he is touching on the administrative responsibilities of the government.

The hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act is explicit. It is illegal for anyone to offer a senator a payment or inducement for anything related to his or her duties as a senator.

According to RCMP records, in February a secret payment funded by the Conservative Party was offered to Senator Duffy. It is perfectly clear. Several PMO staffers and Senator Irving Gerstein were in on the deal.

Has the Attorney General of Canada asked the RCMP to investigate these individuals? If not, why not?

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

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had been investigating this matter for some months now. At the same time, it is evident that the Conservative Party did not pay the expenses of Senator Duffy. The RCMP documents also clearly indicate that it is both Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are the subjects of the current investigation.

Champlain Bridge

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for years, successive governments have ignored the under-investment in our infrastructure, including the Champlain Bridge. Instead of working on a plan for replacing the bridge and making appropriate investments, the government built a superbeam five years ago to patch a potential crack.

Getting a new bridge sooner, as the NDP has been calling for, is good, but can the minister tell us how he is going to cut three years off the project?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this will give me the chance to say that on the weekend, the team from Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, together with a number of private-sector partners, did an excellent job despite temperatures of -20^o and a howling wind to boot. They managed to install a structure that is reinforcing the bridge. We have already invested $380 million to make the current bridge safe. They voted against all that money. It is irresponsible.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we voted against that money because there was nothing for the new Champlain Bridge in the budget.

This did not magically become an urgent matter. Damning reports kept piling up while cabinet ministers responsible for transport and infrastructure were twiddling their thumbs. This mismanagement is why Arup was hired without a tendering process. It is time to show some transparency.

Can the minister confirm that the tendering processes for the new bridge will be open, transparent and competitive?