Paul Calandra

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to ask my colleagues when the last time was that they spoke to people. I am not sure how that is important or relevant to government business.

What I think is important and relevant to government business is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, 17 years ago, could have stopped massive corruption in Quebec. The story just does not seem to add up. He seems somewhat uncomfortable, because the Leader of the Opposition suggests he did not open the envelope when he was getting a bribe. He suggests that he did not accept the bribe.

It does not make sense. How does he know he was getting a bribe if he never opened the envelope?

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would have no idea when the two last spoke.

Again, I am having trouble following this. I know the Leader of the Opposition refuses to answer this question, both in public and in the House. How did he know he was getting a bribe if he did not open the envelope? If he not open the envelope, why did the Leader of the Opposition not actually open the envelope? Would that not have helped 17 years ago?

Does the Leader of the Opposition regret, 17 years ago, not coming forward to the police? Yes or no.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP documents quite clearly state that Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright are the subjects of this investigation. As I just said, we all know that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he was not entitled to accept. It would be wrong.

I guess the best way of comparing it, again, going back to the Leader of the Opposition, is that it would be inappropriate for him to claim an expense for his home in Montreal and call that his principal residence when he is living at the taxpayer-funded Stornoway home.

We do not think that was right. That is why our Senators fought so hard and why we supported accountability in the Senate.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate what Deloitte said today in committee, that the utmost standard of confidentiality was maintained at all times with respect to this.

It comes back down to the fact that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he was not entitled to. As I just said, surely we can agree on that fact. If I can make the comparison, of course, the Leader of the Opposition lives at Stornoway. He has a residence in Montreal. It would be inappropriate for him to claim his residence in Montreal as a secondary residence and collect a per diem when he is living at Stornoway. I am sure he does not do that. That is why we want to stand up for the taxpayers and maintain that exact same standard.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the audit, Deloitte confirmed that confidentiality was maintained at all times. What this comes down to, of course, is the fact that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he did not incur. I cannot understand why it is that the opposition seems to want to protect Senator Duffy.

It would be like the Leader of the Opposition accepting per diems when he lives in Stornoway and then saying that his home in Montreal is not his principal residence. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition does not do that, because that would not be appropriate.

I am hoping that the same standard he, I assume, maintains is the same standard he will fight for in the Senate.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Deloitte quite clearly said that the audit was done with the utmost confidentiality, and that confidentiality was maintained at all times.

Again, I contrast that with the Leader of the Opposition, who said that he did not reach out to police, because he had no proof that what he was being offered was a bribe. He did not know that what he was being offered was a bribe, because apparently he did not open the envelope, but then, later, he thought it was a bribe.

If you were meeting with the mayor of Laval, either you knew he was crooked, and that is why you did not open the envelope, and if you did, why were you meeting with him?

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, what Deloitte said is that the audit was actually conducted with the utmost confidentiality.

At the same time, I have asked the Leader of the Opposition questions Canadians want to know, and they keep saying he refused the bribe. Now, if he did not open the envelope, how does he know that what he was getting was a bribe? He did not open the envelope, because he thought it was a bribe, but he did not open it. He was meeting with a mayor of a town. Could it not just have been an important correspondence? Something does not add up to me here. Either he opened it and knew it was a bribe, or he did not.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, and of course, as the RCMP documents he refers to state, Senator Gerstein is not under investigation. What this is is the fact that Senator Duffy accepted payment that he did not incur, and Nigel Wright, unfortunately, repaid those expenses. Both of these situations were wrong. Canadian taxpayers wanted those moneys refunded. Unfortunately, the Liberals tried to stand in the way of that. We fought for accountability from those three senators, and we got it.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, as I just said a moment ago, Deloitte confirmed that the audit was done with the utmost standard of confidentiality. I think that is very good news.

At the same time, we know that, of course, the Liberals stand constantly in support of these three disgraced senators and former disgraced Liberal senator Mac Harb. What was inappropriate is that these senators accepted payment they were not entitled to. What is also inappropriate is that the Liberals fought so hard to defend these three senators.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of phonies, I guess my question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition would be this: When he talked about the bribe he was potentially offered, he said that he did not know that what he was being offered was a bribe, because he did not actually open the envelope. If he did not open the envelope, how did he know that what he was being offered was a bribe? Was it because he knew the mayor of Laval was crooked? If he knew the mayor of Laval was crooked, why would he have been meeting with him? It does not make sense. He is giving Clintonian-type answers to this. Either he opened the envelope, or he did not.