David McGuinty

[Ethics, December 3rd, 2013]

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?

[Ethics, December 3rd, 2013]

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 of 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?

[Ethics, December 2nd, 2013]

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?

[Ethics, December 2nd, 2013]

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?

[Rail Transportation, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, officials confirmed that, even after the minister's directive, crude oil from the Bakken oil patch—the same source as the oil in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy—is being transported without testing and without the appropriate classification. It is beyond comprehension. Even Enbridge is saying that this oil is particularly dangerous.

For the second time this week, what has to happen for the minister to take rail safety in Canada seriously?

[Rail Transportation, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General concluded that the Conservatives are putting Canadians' lives in danger with regard to rail safety. Let us look at what he said. He talks about “significant weaknesses” in rail safety and he points out that “it is taking too long to resolve significant safety issues”. He also points out that there is no guarantee that rail safety inspectors have the skills needed to carry out their work.

What will it take for the minister to take Canadian rail safety seriously?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has filed hundreds of emails documenting every step in the cover-up in the Prime Minister's Office. That is clear.

To date, the government has not produced any documentation to support its version of the facts, which keeps changing. Canadians do not believe the Conservatives, who have lost all credibility

When will the government share every document in its possession so that Canadians can finally learn the truth?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, RCMP court records make it perfectly clear that the PMO was negotiating in February with Mike Duffy's lawyer to arrive at a five-point scheme to have the Conservative Party “keep him whole on the repayment” and pay his legal fees.

Nigel Wright is explicit in indicating that he wanted to speak with the Prime Minister about these points, and less than an hour later he writes, “We are good to go from the PM”.

In light of the damning evidence, how can the Prime Minister possibly continue to claim he was not in the loop?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is yet another contradiction from the Prime Minister's Office on the Wright-Duffy affair.

The PMO spokesperson claimed on the weekend, “...the Prime Minister was not always presented with the facts that we now know”.

Last Friday, the Prime Minister was asked whether anyone, other than Wright and Duffy, hid anything from him, and he said categorically, “No”.

No matter how hard they try, The Conservatives just cannot keep their stories straight. How long will the Prime Minister persist with this internal cover-up?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, years ago, an addictions expert told me that being addicted to something means that a person pretty much has no freedom. It is the antithesis of being free, because one is addicted. Right now, in Canadian society, people are watching on television the goings-on and the playing out of a very troubled situation in Toronto, where there is a mayor who is clearly dealing with a very serious challenge with substance abuse.

Canadians know about substance abuse. They know about the difficulties around addiction. However, I want to ask my colleague a question about health care costs.

He talked about the Supreme Court saying that it is a balance between public health and public safety.

In the city of Ottawa several years ago, there was a meaningful debate about an InSite injection site. At that time, the public health officer informed the citizenry that it costs between $600,000 and $1 million in health care costs to treat one HIV patient. That is one HIV patient. That does not count the millions of dollars in costs from hepatitis C infections and beyond.

I would have thought that a fiscally Conservative regime like the one across the floor would be weighing heavily the implications of health care costs, with scarce dollars being allocated to our health care system. I am wondering if my colleague can comment on the fact that the Conservative government is not even mentioning the health care costs that can be held in abeyance and prevented if we actually take a more public health approach to this than simply pounding people on the head saying that this is all about crime and then locking people up.