Paul Calandra

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is coming from a member who stands behind a leader who, for 17 years, did not say a word about the fact that he was offered a bribe, and we know what the consequences to the people of Quebec were for that decision over 17 years. This is coming from a party that accepted illegal union donations. All 103 of them are responsible for that decision.

Here is the reality. Nigel Wright did something that was wrong. He is prepared to accept the consequences of those actions. It does not matter what party one is in, do not accept payments that one is not entitled to. It is pretty simple.

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister, I could care less what that gentleman thinks about how I answer questions in the House because I will always answer the questions that are put to me in the way that protects the Canadian taxpayer, unlike the Liberals and that particular former leader who is surrounded by individuals who have illegal campaign debts. He is not so worried about that, is he? Perhaps he would have that same level of aggression with those people who have those illegal debts.

On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for the taxpayer. Over there, the Liberals are going to try to protect the status quo. They have an option: protect the taxpayer, pass the motion in the House. That is what they—

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I will not take any lessons in being a successful politician from the member who just asked that question.

This is what the debate has come down to in this House. They know that they are not on the side of Canadians. They know that they are not on the side of Canadians who want these senators suspended without pay, so now they are going to start insulting me. If it makes them feel better to insult me because I do not speak great French, oh well, they can go ahead.

In the final analysis, what we want is accountability. They need to get out of the way in the Senate so that the Senate can pass this motion. If I could say it as well in French, I would, but I cannot; however, soon I will be able to, because I am taking lessons.

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as we said last week in the House, the party—and we are not unusual in this—does offer members of its caucus who are in good standing legal assistance if it is required. On the same token, we learned on May 15 that Senator Duffy did not actually pay back those expenses and that it was done by Nigel Wright. That was inappropriate. Mr. Wright has accepted the consequences of that decision. At the same time, there is a motion in the Senate that would suspend these three senators without pay.

That is the level of accountability that we want. The Liberals in the Senate need to get out of the way and let Canadians have that level of accountability.

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that would open up the accountability of our unions when it comes to the payments that they make. Now we learn about this member here, and I guess that is the problem here. If it was the unions making this repayment, NDP members would probably have no problem with it, because we know how excited they are about accepting illegal union donations on that side of the House.

At the same time, what we said is this: if anyone has inappropriate expenses, they have to repay them. There is a motion in front of the Senate right now that would suspend these three senators. We want the Senate to deal with it.

On this side of the House, we are fighting for the taxpayers and we are going to continue to do that.

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on February 13 the Prime Minister was very clear to everyone, including Senator Duffy, that if they had inappropriate expenses, they should repay those inappropriate expenses.

Senator Duffy then went on TV and said he took out a loan at the Royal Bank. We know that was not true. We learned that Nigel Wright actually paid that back. Nigel Wright has said that it was inappropriate to do so; at the same time, the Prime Minister said that had he known anything about this, he would in no way have endorsed such a scheme.

Nigel Wright is accepting accountability for what he has done. He knows that what he has done is wrong. There is a motion in front of the Senate that would suspend the three senators and bring accountability to taxpayers. We hope that senators will support us in that, and that the Senate will actually pass—

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here they go again, trying to defend these three senators and disgraced Liberal Senator Mac Harb.

They are not the victims here. These senators are not the victims. It is the Canadian taxpayers who are the victims. There is a motion in front of the Senate that would suspend these three senators, yet those members come in the House day after day and try to defend these three senators.

When it comes to reform of the Senate, we want to reform the Senate. We have motions in front of the Supreme Court of Canada that will give us a road map to do that. We want a reformed Senate and we are going to fight for a reformed Senate, because that—

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that Senator Duffy went in front of Canadians and said that he had repaid the money for inappropriate expenses. We know that he did not do that.

As I said the other day, Senator Duffy is a guy who calls himself the “Duffinator”. Somehow the kids in short pants terrified the Duffinator. Had I known that kids in short pants terrified the Press Gallery so much, I would be walking like this all the time, because apparently kids in short pants are to Mike Duffy like garlic to a vampire. He cannot take it. Give me a break.

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is that the member was elected as a federalist and at the same time he is making donations to a party that wants to remove Quebec from Canada. That is what is really ridiculous. While I agree with nothing the Bloc members say, at least they are honest in the fact that they go in front of people and are honest.

What is clearly ridiculous is that the member thinks it is funny to donate to a party that wants to break up Canada. There is nothing funny about that. We will work to a bigger, better, stronger, more prosperous Canada, even with him in the House.

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about writing cheques. How about the fact that his leader not only accepted repayment for over $100,000 for his legal fees, but also accepted repayment of a judgment against him for libel?

It goes even further. The member's leader is so tough that he forgot about 17 years' worth of bribes that he was offered. Imagine what the people of Quebec could have avoided had he only opened his mouth 17 years ago? The great prosecutor forgot to mention that 17 years ago.

While I am on my feet, let us talk about the member for Beauce, who raised over $100,000 for his local charity—