House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister decided to make taxpayers cover legal bills from three prestigious Bay Street firms hired to protect friends of his who got in big trouble.
Does the Prime Minister think it is okay to make taxpayers cover the legal expenses of employees of his friends who were embroiled in this scandal?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, all Treasury Board rules are being followed.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, can anyone on the other side of the House say how much money is set aside for lawyers who represent past and present employees of the Prime Minister's Office who are being investigated because of this scandal?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, all Treasury Board rules are being followed in this case. With respect to how much, I am not sure. She is probably better to ask her own leader. He would have a better understanding of how much it would cost him to defend something. We, of course, know that he spent hundreds of thousands of his own party's dollars to defend him in a suit he had.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, we sometimes get unbelievable answers in the House.
The Prime Minister not only mislead the House for months, claiming that he knew nothing, but now he is refusing to answer questions about how much the attempted cover-up cost. The questions we are asking today are not overly complicated.
Is the budget item for legal expenses less than or greater than $1 million?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, again, all Treasury Board guidelines are being followed on this.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it will take a little more to convince Canadians and Quebeckers.
We have asked the question three times and we still do not know how much it cost to cover the legal fees of current and former Conservative employees who are under criminal investigation by the RCMP. Perhaps the answer can be found in an email that they tried to delete and that will be found six months from now. Today, we want to know whether the contracts awarded to the three Bay Street firms for legal services were subject to a competitive bidding process or whether these contracts were, once again, awarded to Conservative Party friends.
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, again, all Treasury Board guidelines with respect to this are being followed. As the member knows, all expenditures of the Government of Canada are, of course, tabled in the House of Commons. Those expenditures are approved by all members of Parliament.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again, we do not have an answer.
Yesterday, the NDP proposed that the Board of Internal Economy be replaced with an independent monitoring system and that the Access to Information Act apply to the House of Commons and the Senate. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against these attempts to improve transparency.
Can the Conservatives explain why they are refusing to allow the Access to Information Act to apply to their senators? What are they hiding from Canadian families?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, this party has led the way with respect to transparency and accountability. One of the first acts our government brought forward in 2006 was the accountability act. At the same time, when it comes to presenting to Canadians the expenses that members of Parliament have, it is this party that has led the way with proactive disclosure.
I note that the NDP members are refusing to put their expenses online. I hope they will join with the Conservative Party in making their expenses available online to all Canadians.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the Conservative caucus did not even bother. That is why we need uniform disclosure. That is what Canadians deserve.
Liberals and Conservatives refuse to let the Senate and House be subject to the Access to Information Act. That is shameful. The Auditor General has said there needs to be independent oversight of MPs' expenses and no more MP self-policing. The NDP agrees with the Auditor General.
Why are Conservatives and Liberals blocking the Auditor General's efforts for transparency around MPs' and senators' expenses? What are they trying to hide?
John Duncan ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are voluntarily reporting their travel and hospitality expenses, because we are committed to increasing accountability for Canadian taxpayers. We continue to seek support from all parties to improve reporting that applies to all parliamentarians, and we believe that all parties should voluntarily disclose in the meantime.
It is worth noting that only the NDP has chosen not to provide the public with details about their travel and hospitality expenses.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the New Democrats want binding rules for all members of the House, and the Liberals and Conservatives joined forces to block access to information and to continue to police themselves.
My hon. colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has put forward very promising legislation for parliamentary reform. I personally will be supporting this legislation at second reading, and the leader of my party has said this will be a free vote.
My question is for the Chief Government Whip. Will the members of the Conservative Party have a free vote on this bill?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, they will actually have to come a day early to rehearse how to practise a free vote. The NDP never has free votes. In fact, The Globe and Mail did an extensive study behind the nearly 162,000 votes cast in this place. It found that not a single member of the NDP cast a vote against its leader in almost a two-year period.
One hundred per cent of the time, the New Democrats do groupthink over there. They are not capable of independent thought. On this side, we have the most free votes, and we have had the most private members' bills passed of any Parliament in 40 years.
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Speaker, Irving Gerstein is the government chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. That committee's mandate would include ensuring that commercial audits in Canada are professional and beyond reproach. Yet we know that Senator Gerstein intervened in the Deloitte audit of Mike Duffy and was prepared, as head of the Conservative fund, to offer financial inducement to the senator to get him to play ball.
Why is the Prime Minister directing his caucus to block the appearance of Senator Gerstein and Michael Runia?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, of course, the three Deloitte auditors who were in charge of this audit did appear before a Senate committee recently. They confirmed that the report they provided maintained utmost confidentiality at all times and that the Senate could have confidence in the report that was tabled. They made the decision at that point that no further action was needed.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives appointed Senator Gerstein chair of the important Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and chair of the Conservative Fund Canada.
RCMP documents indicate that he allegedly approved a transfer of $32,000 in party funds to Mike Duffy. It is illegal to try to buy Mr. Duffy's co-operation, to give the impression that Mr. Duffy repaid his expenses himself and to put an end to the investigation of the Senate.
Why did the Attorney General not ask the RCMP to investigate Senator Gerstein's actions?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, again, as the RCMP documents clearly state, the subjects of the investigation are Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. At the same time, with respect to the audit, as I just said to the previous question, the three auditors were before the Senate committee. They confirmed that the audit was done properly and maintained confidentiality at all times and that the Senate could have confidence in the work that they did.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, we now know that Senator Gerstein also called Michael Runia, a senior partner at Deloitte, to secure his help in shutting down the Duffy audit. What is even more shocking? According to the RCMP files, Senator Gerstein made the $32,000 offer, then tried to shut down the audit, all at the instruction of the PMO.
It is illegal for anyone to even offer a financial inducement to a senator. Why the reluctance of the Attorney General to refer the actions of PMO staffers and Senator Gerstein to the RCMP to determine whether they should face criminal prosecution?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, of course, the Attorney General does not direct our law enforcement officers to do anything. The Attorney General does not direct anybody to do investigations, but more importantly, these documents have also stated that it is Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright who are the subjects of the current investigation.
Again, as I have said already twice, the three auditors were brought before the Senate committee, and they confirmed that the work they did was kept in the strictest confidentiality and that the senators could have confidence in the report that they tabled.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, an investigation based on data from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has shown that the number of incidents involving runaway trains every year is three times higher than we thought.
Most of these incidents are not made public.
What is most troubling is that the cause of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy is not technically classified in that category under the current definition.
Why so much secrecy around these runaway trains? Why are there not more investigations?
Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority for our government.
Railway safety regulations exist to ensure the safety and protection of the public. That includes, for example, a mandatory push-pull test. If these regulations were not followed, we will not hesitate to take whatever course of action is available to us.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, runaway trains are dangerous. Some go at high speed. Others travel a long distance, and yet some others carry dangerous cargo.
Only one out of three incidents were made public, and few were investigated. We know that 47 lives were lost because of runaway trains.
What is the minister doing to stop them? Where are the regulations and the penalties that stop these runaway trains?
Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member will know that railway safety regulations, including, for example, the mandatory push-pull test, are there to ensure the safety and protection of the public. If they have not been followed, we will not hesitate to take whatever course of action is available to us.
On the issue of penalties, the hon. member will know that she opposed our move to raise fines against companies for infractions of the Railway Safety Act to $1 million. On the safety of transporting dangerous goods by rail, I have a quote:
Shipping materials by train are...very safe, and the record is really quite good.
Who said that? None other than the member for Trinity—Spadina.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is the government's job to keep Canadians safe, and it cannot even do that.
Mismanagement also abounds when it comes to contracting professional services. Under this Prime Minister, we have seen costs balloon nearly 30%, over $10 billion a year, for contractors who are not accountable to the public. How many rail inspectors would that hire?
How can the Conservatives justify spending billions on outside contractors while failing to deliver the services Canadians rely on?