Paul Calandra

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that would be too easy, since that member is surrounded by people who have broken the rules. He is surrounded by people who have broken the Canada Elections Act. He is surrounded by members who have been charged of robocalls. We know the Liberals are only talking of Brandon–Souris today, but come next week, they will not talk about it at all.

I think the people of Brandon–Souris believe what the people of my riding do. They want lower taxes; they will get that with a Conservative. They do not want a gun registry; they will get that with a Conservative. They want marketing freedom for their farmers; they will get that with a Conservative. They are proud of democracy; they will get that with the Conservatives.

On every issue that matters, it is the Conservatives who will always stand up for the people of Brandon–Souris, not the pretend Liberals.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and as the report clearly outlines, the Prime Minister showed incredible leadership. The moment he found about this, he went into his office and ordered that his office and the PMO co-operate, that all emails be preserved and that they assist the RCMP in this investigation. That is the standard of leadership that Canadians expect. That is the standard of leadership they got from this Prime Minister.

At the same time, this is about Nigel Wright. As these documents completely show, it is about Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. The Prime Minister did not know about this. Had he known about it, he would have never endorsed such a scheme.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, finally, we can agree on something. It was extraordinarily inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to wait 17 years to talk about a bribe that he was offered.

I am usually, of course, very critical of this member's questions and that still remains the same, but at least on that one point we agree. The Leader of the Opposition should not have waited 17 years to disclose that he was offered a bribe. He could have saved the people of Quebec so many years of misery. That is not the standard of leadership Canadians expect. That is why this Prime Minister is in office today and will be for a long time to come.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, the documents released in court yesterday quite clearly show who the investigation is about. It is about Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright.

What the documents also show is a contrast in leadership styles between this Prime Minister and anybody in that caucus. As soon as the Prime Minister knew about this, he ordered his staff to participate, to assist, to hold back any emails. That is unlike the Liberal Party, which when faced with a crisis in its government decided to lie, cheat, and misplace $40 million, which we still have not found.

I will take this style of leadership, this style of openness, and the leadership given by our Prime Minister day in and day out to anything the Liberals ever have to offer.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the report clearly outlines that it was Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright who are the subject of this investigation. Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he was not entitled to accept, and Nigel Wright repaid those expenses. That was inappropriate. He is prepared to accept the consequences. I hope that Senator Duffy will do the same.

I ask it again. The hon. member talked about working with people who have broken the rules and broken the laws. He is surrounded by people. He might want to ask them that very same question.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the report quite clearly states that it is Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright who are under investigation.

If the standard was as he says, the entire Liberal caucus would not be in Parliament. They are surrounded by people who broke the Canada Elections Act. There are members in that caucus who were complicit and worked to try to defraud Canadians of $40 million by funnelling government advertising money to their riding associations. If the member really wants to go down that road, he might look at this own caucus and decide how many would be left of the 31 or 32 members, or whatever it is, if he has that standard.

He should get back to facts. Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy are what this is about.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, emails and documents, upon the departure of staff, are managed according to applicable rules, including Treasury Board guidelines. Of course we expect all staff to follow those rules.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, imagine this gentleman talking about donations when this is the party that accepted $340,000 worth of illegal union donations. Give me a break. He sits beside a member who made 29 separate donations to the Québec solidaire.

He has a leader who does not think corruption is a big deal and does not report it for 17 years. That leader is sitting beside another person who wants to gerrymander the riding boundaries, who is sitting beside another person who wants to actually break apart the country and who criticizes the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces who have fought in wars.

There are a lot of people on that side who have a lot to answer for. On this side we are—

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, what is very clear is that it is Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright who are the subjects of this investigation.

Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he did not incur. He was not entitled to these expenses. At the same time, Nigel Wright repaid those expenses. That was wrong. Nigel Wright has admitted that and is prepared to accept the consequences.

That is another reason Senator Duffy was suspended from the Senate without pay. That is the standard we expect on this side of the House. It is unfortunate that the NDP and the Liberals do not accept the same standards.

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the documents quite clearly outline who the subjects of the investigation are. They are Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. At the same time, the documents show the leadership that the Prime Minister took in ordering his office to assist. They also show that the Prime Minister did not know what was happening with respect to this scheme. As he said on a number of occasions, had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme.

The member is quite right, though, that when one does not answer questions, as the Leader of the Opposition did not for 17 years, there are a lot of big problems. I think the people of Quebec understand and do not appreciate the fact that for 17 years he held back the fact that he was given a bribe. That is not real leadership.