Paul Calandra

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, whilst we may disagree on a number of facts throughout today's debate and we may disagree that it is a priority of the Canadian people at this point to take the full length of a day, I wonder if the member might at least comment on whether he would agree with me that the actions of these three senators and disgraced former Liberal senator, Mac Harb, were inappropriate? Would he agree that, ultimately, the Canadian taxpayers were defrauded by these four senators and they needed to face some type of punishment?

If he would agree that this is the case, would he explain to the House why it was that the Liberals in the Senate fought so hard against removing the three remaining senators from the Senate? Why did they fight so hard to protect the status quo in the Senate?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the poor NDP could not find an appropriate NDP person to lead the party, so they went and found a corrupt Liberal. That is the real story here: an NDP leader who waited 17 years to talk about corruption in the province of Quebec.

I will contrast that to this Prime Minister, who immediately, upon finding out, went to his office and insisted that they assist with the investigation. That is a very clear contrast between the two: one who covers things up, and the other one who looks for it and makes sure that his office assists.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear, in the exact same documents the member references, is that on February 13, the Prime Minister told Senator Duffy to repay his inappropriate expenses. We know that Senator Duffy resisted that constantly. We also know that Senator Duffy has not paid a cent back of those inappropriate expenses at this point.

We also see that the Prime Minister, when he found out on May 15, went to his office and insisted that his office work with and assist the RCMP. That is the type of leadership one would expect from a prime minister, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who, for 17 years, did not think it was important to talk about a bribe that he got but that he says he did not accept.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a very complicated question. I will answer in French this time: no.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course, she is sitting in a caucus where, I do not know, three-quarters of them have been convicted of some type of fraud, whether it is the Elections Canada Act or robocalls. The real fraud squad is sitting in the Liberal Party. They are still getting paid as members of Parliament.

Perhaps she could unleash those Liberal fraud squad members in helping us find that $40 million that we are still looking for.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when she talks about a fraud squad, she must be talking about the member for York West. She must be talking about the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, or perhaps the member for Malpeque, or perhaps the member for Vancouver Centre, four members who, of course, have either broken Canada Elections' laws or have actually taken advantage of their expense accounts. She might be talking about the member for Kings—Hants, who sent an email in the days leading up to the income trust scandal that said, “Don't worry, you'll be very happy soon. We'll be very happy soon”.

What did the Liberal, Mr. Goodale, say? He seemed very uneasy, very uneasy.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of former NDP Liberals, I guess that is another NDP member who was embarrassed by the fact that her former leader had waited 17 years, judging by the fact that the disgrace and the trouble that 17-year delay caused the people of Quebec she decided to go to the Liberal Party.

What is very clear in this confrontation is that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of what was going on. Had he known, he would have put an immediate stop to it. That is the standard of leadership I think Canadians expect, and that is what they get from this Prime Minister day in and day out.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister found out about this on May 15. The moment he found out about this, he went back to his office and insisted that they assist the RCMP in uncovering what had happened here. I contrast that, of course, to the Leader of the Opposition, who, for 17 years, sat quietly, did not mention a thing.

He gets a big brown envelope. I am not sure what he thought was in the big brown envelope, maybe Scotch mints or something like that. Then again, I guess as a Liberal, big brown envelopes are something he would expect.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the documents make it quite clear that it is Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright who are the products of the investigation. It also shows quite clearly that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of what was going on, and had he known, he would have put a stop to it.

Then again I ask the Leader of the Opposition, is it normal to get a big brown envelope, or was the fact that you were a Liberal then? Is that what made it normal?