Debates of May 22nd, 2013

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, somehow the Conservatives think that parsing words is going to satisfy Canadians. What Canadians want is the truth, plain and simple.

The minister keeps saying he is “not aware” or that something is “my understanding”. He has no knowledge of the situation, apparently. He has what they call in the cover-up business “plausible deniability”.

Given that the minister has no knowledge and no answers, is there anyone over there who knows something about this scandal with Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright? Yes or no? Can anyone answer a straightforward question?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I answered very precisely just a few short minutes ago. No one in the government is aware of any agreement or any legal document with respect to this payment. I cannot be any clearer.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been a week since news broke that the Prime Minister's right-hand man secretly paid a sitting senator $90,000 to obstruct an audit. Today, I want to ask a very specific question about that obstruction.

We now know that the Conservatives on the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration used their majority to doctor the final report on Senator Duffy's expenses. Can anybody on that side of the House tell us who gave the order to whitewash the report on Senator Duffy?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the committee's report that these expenses should not have been expensed. No one in the government is disputing that fact.

As I understand it, the report did, in the end, reflect the fact that a repayment had been made.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sending the minister a copy of the original undoctored document, for his information. We will share this information with him since the Prime Minister did not see fit to do so.

Yesterday, Senator LeBreton, the government Senate leader, denied any involvement in the falsification of the final report. If that is true, then who ordered Senator Tkachuk and Senator Olsen to go easy on Mr. Duffy?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is parliamentarians should be here to serve the public interest. It is a tremendous responsibility. It is a tremendous honour to serve Canadians. People should be working to advance the public interest and not to advance their own interests. That is what this government got elected for, that is what this government has been working hard to do, and that is why we have taken the action that we have taken.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with what the minister just said.

This is truly remarkable. The Prime Minister, through surrogates, of course, denies any involvement. His principal secretary and new chief of staff denies, Senator LeBreton denies, the whole cabinet denies. The government would have us believe that Nigel Wright, a man of “unimpeachable integrity”, according to the members opposite just three days ago, is now the only person who knew anything at all about this sordid scandal, and planned and perpetrated the entire thing by himself.

If Mr. Wright is solely responsible, when will the government call him to testify under oath to his malfeasance?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I answered questions very clear yesterday to say the Prime Minister first learned about this payment, the nature of this payment, after it was reported publicly in the media. At a press conference just a few moments ago, responding to questions from the media, the Prime Minister indicated that he was not consulted, nor was he asked to sign off on it, nor would he have signed off on it.

Obviously we take great issue with these actions and we believe that Mr. Wright did the appropriate thing. He submitted his resignation, and it was immediately accepted.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an indictable offence to offer a senator compensation in relation to a controversy before the Senate. Surely the Prime Minister knows the laws of Canada, yet he did not call in the cops; instead the issue is being handed back to the same in camera committee that was part of the original cover-up.

Who on that committee was part of the $90,000 whitewash? As well, will they be allowed to take part in this new review, or will the government do the right thing and call in the police?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this matter has been referred to the ethics officer, Mary Dawson, for review, as it properly should be. It is currently before her. She will obviously take the necessary time to review this matter and report back to the House.

Obviously, we take strong issue with this. We disagree with the nature of this payment and we look forward to hearing back from her in short order. She is an independent officer of Parliament, and we look forward to hearing her views.

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

Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, I bet the whole Conservative bench wishes they could be hiding out in Peru right now.

Speaking of non-denial denials, yesterday the Prime Minister's key legal advisor, Mr. Perrin, said that he was never involved in Nigel Wright's decision. What he did not explain was if he played a role in implementing the decision that led to the cover-up.

Nobody, including the Prime Minister, has come clean about what happened in the Prime Minister's Office, so who else in the Prime Minister's Office knew about this deal and who in the Senate was involved in the whitewash?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today at a press conference, the Prime Minister took questions on this issue. It was very clear that he was not consulted about this payment. He did not know about this payment in advance. In fact, he only learned about the payment afterwards.

He obviously has spoken substantially earlier today about this issue. I think those comments speak for themselves.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he is once again unable to answer because he did not see the deal. Can we talk to someone who saw this deal and who knows what happened between the chief of staff and Mike Duffy in the Prime Minister's office?

The Conservatives claim that the Prime Minister was not aware of this situation until it was reported in the media.

If I understand correctly, that means that CTV is more aware of what is happening in the PMO than the Prime Minister himself, and he is the one leading our country.

When senators' fraudulent expenditures became too embarrassing, did the Prime Minister ask his chief of staff to solve the problem?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly in this House, the Prime Minister was unaware of this payment. When he learned about the payment, he obviously accepted the resignation of Mr. Wright.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that they are allergic to the idea of answering questions. That must be the case or else they must be completely out to lunch and have no idea what happened in their boss's office.

Enough beating around the bush. Senator Duffy received $90,000. Three other senators are currently under investigation for the misuse of public funds.

Is the Prime Minister aware of any other similar cheques or money transfers that may have been approved by his office staff or members of his government to buy the silence of other senators?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants a document tabled that no one in the government is aware exists with respect to legal documents surrounding this payment.

Nigel Wright accepted sole responsibility for his action. He accepted sole responsibility for his decision, and the Prime Minister immediately accepted his resignation.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are unable to answer the questions simply because they have no idea what happened. Worse yet, it seems as though they do not want to know what happened.

According to the Conservatives, there is no paper trail for this $90,000 deal. They would have us believe that no document or email was signed to confirm the transfer of funds and possibly the repayment of this amount.

Has the Prime Minister's Office submitted any such document to the Ethics Commissioner or the bogus Senate committee as part of the investigation? Can the question be any broader than that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it was this government that brought in an independent and strengthened ethics watchdog. This government has always fully co-operated with her in her work.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, they have no answer. That is not surprising, because they did not get a real answer from the Prime Minister before he abandoned ship.

My next question is on the Senate committee that investigated the allegations against the senators accused of wrongdoing and what the Conservatives' connection might be to all this. The committee meetings are supposed to be held in camera.

Was anyone from the PMO aware that these meetings were going on? If so, who was it and what did he learn?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the committee has now publicly reported. It is clear from the committee's report that the expenses in question should never have been claimed. No one in the government is disputing that fact.

I understand the report did reflect that a reimbursement had been made. The member opposite will know that the Prime Minister has spoken to the media earlier today on these questions.

Justice

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada's former law clerk to the House of Commons said that the $90,000 cheque prima facie violates the Parliament of Canada Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

Will the Minister of Justice stand up today and answer a question, or will he let the Minister of Foreign Affairs stand up, as he did yesterday, to reject the relevance of our criminal law?

Will the minister at least recognize that this financial transaction may have constituted a crime and commit to calling in the RCMP?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the government obviously does not direct police authorities.

What we have said is that this Parliament has established an independent ethics officer, Mary Dawson. This matter has been referred to her. Obviously we have said, as we always do, that we will fully co-operate with any review she should choose to conduct.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they can tell that to Helena Guergis.

At the very least it is clear a crime may have been committed, so why the silence from the Minister of Justice? No one is buying the Conservatives' hear-no-evil approach to this issue.

The Parliament of Canada Act, in section 16, states that “No member of the Senate shall receive...any compensation...in relation to any...matter before...a committee...”, yet according to reports, this is exactly what Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright did.

Why will the Minister of Justice not concede that a crime may have been committed and call in the RCMP?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite talked about a previous case. The independent ethics watchdog did look into that and rendered a rather strong verdict with respect to that file.

We have confidence in the process in place. This matter has been referred to this independent watchdog of Parliament, who operates completely independently of the government. She will conduct her review properly, as she always does, and will report back to us in very short order.

Government Accountability

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is going for cocky when he should be going for contrition. A little less swagger and a little more Jimmy Swaggart would be in order.

They rode into Ottawa on their high horse of accountability, and all we have to show for it is the mess that horse left. They should take their Federal Accountability Act and run it through that horse and throw it on their roses for all the good it has ever done us.

My question for the minister is simple: when did it all go so terribly wrong? When did they jettison integrity and honesty and accountability for the sake of political expediency?