Scott Andrews

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate and discussion around this issue today.

What we are looking for are some answers. We are trying to get the Prime Minister to come before our committee so we can get some answers as to what went wrong and when he knew this was ongoing, so we can get to the bottom of it. One thing I have learned in politics is that the thing that we hold most dear is trust, and once it is lost it is gone forever. We work very hard to gain the trust of our constituents. We work very hard to gain the trust of Canadians.

However, the moment we have lost that trust, it is gone and it is hard to get it back.

We are trying to get to the bottom of this because Canadians have lost their trust in the current Prime Minister and he should feel compelled to want to regain that trust. Everywhere I have gone over the last few weeks and over this past summer, every barbecue, every function I attended, people would come up to me and talk about this. Canadians are engaged. They want to know what went on. They want to get to the bottom of it.

It is important that we in this chamber find out what happened and put this behind us, so that we can move on to some of the more important issues. I am sure the government has a lot of important issues that it would like to put forward. However, this needs to be put to bed first. That is why the motion is on the table. The problem is that there have been a lot of contradictory statements made in here, in the media, in the Senate, and by the RCMP, as well. There is a lot to get to the bottom of.

First, let us review the timeline on this particular case. I will focus on one small aspect of the timeline.

This started last November. November 22 is when the Senate internal economy committee had the task of reviewing these senators' expenses. This was first brought out a year ago. Then, through December, it was reported that Senator Duffy had made claims on his living expenses. Then it continued into January 2013, when the auditing firm of Deloitte was hired. Then it carried into February, when the Senate said anyone should repay the money and the Prime Minister reported to his caucus that if anyone had received any of this money, it was time to repay it.

Therefore, it had been burning for almost three or four months.

Then it continued throughout February with the different claims on residency of senators and the amount owing by Mr. Duffy got to the $90,000 mark in March of 2013. Then it carried on through April, as well, when there was the whitewashing of reports and the audits were completed. Then it all came to a head in May.

This is the time frame I would like to discuss today. What exactly happened during those five days in May when the Prime Minister was thrust into this discussion? That is the most important time frame in all of this discussion, trying to get to the bottom of how the Prime Minister handled this during those five days in May.

Despite this having gone on for almost six to eight months, let us give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, that prior to May 14, he knew nothing about the scheme of how Senator Duffy repaid his expenses. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of this discussion today and let us focus on those five days in May when the Prime Minister lost a lot of credibility and a lot of trust.

It started on May 14, at 10:01 p.m., when the report was filed that Senator Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright had an arrangement to repay the $90,000.

I have been a political staffer. We all know that there are teams of communications officials in the Prime Minister's Office who watch every single news cast, read every single paper and monitor this stuff 24/7. This is when this story really started, on May 14. At 10:01 p.m., this report broke. I can say that right then the communications teams in the Prime Minister's Office went into high gear. Everybody was alerted that this story had come out and had been put solely on the chief of staff of the Prime Minister on May 14.

I will give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt that he was home on Sussex Drive in bed, not paying attention to this, spending time with his family, and this was not brought to his attention on that evening.

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. Has the Government of Canada, or the Conservative Party, paid any legal fees for the member for Peterborough, who is facing very serious charges under the Elections Act? They include wilfully incurring election expenses in excess of the limit, wilfully exceeding the contribution limit by paying election expenses of $21,000 out of his own funds, and knowingly providing the Chief Electoral Officer with false documents that failed to report a $21,000 election expense.

Has the Government of Canada paid his legal fees?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the PMO, three Conservative senators are under RCMP investigation related to their expense claims. To cover up the PMO involvement, the government leader in the Senate has moved to suspend them. However, here in the House the member for Peterborough has been charged with very serious offences under the Canada Elections Act and yet the government has made no attempt to suspend him. After all, he is still on the public payroll.

Why the double standard?

[Ethics, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, fair enough. Peter Penashue cheats on his election and his punishment is that he has to resign from cabinet and resign from the House of Commons. The member for Saint Boniface cheats on her election and what is her punishment? She gets to be—

[Ethics, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to cover up corruption within his own office and his handling of the bogus expenses of senators who he appointed. The Prime Minister's approach in the House is a different story.

The member for Peterborough is facing very serious charges and possible prison time for electoral fraud, yet he is still sitting in the House. Why the double standard? Is it because in the Senate, the Prime Minister, and his entire senior staff have their dirty little fingerprints all over this Conservative corruption?

[Privilege, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay on October 17.

On June 5 with the resignation of Nigel Wright, the pressure was mounting on the Prime Minister surrounding the $90,000 payoff to Mike Duffy. The Prime Minister rose in the House and told the House:

...it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers. Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office. They were Mr. Wright's decisions, but he takes full responsibility for them.

The most important sentence in that whole statement was, and I will reiterate, “They were not communicated to me or to members of my office”. I assume on June 5 he did communicate with all members of his office to get to the bottom of this.

With revelations not only by Senator Mike Duffy yesterday but indeed by sworn court documents filed by the RCMP, we know now that the Prime Minister's assertions in June and his ongoing answers to the Mike Duffy payoff are simply not true. Worse, the Prime Minister continues to provide answers in the House that bear no resemblance to the facts that are now on the record.

Back in June it seemed somewhat possible that the Prime Minister simply had no idea what was going on in his own office and that Nigel Wright acted alone with no one else involved or informed. Some would give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it is now plainly evident that this was not the case.

We know that several people in the Prime Minister's Office and his inner circle were involved with this deal and this cover-up. We know this from sworn court documents filed by the RCMP, and Mike Duffy echoed this yesterday, revealing that the Prime Minister himself gave the order, far from the Prime Minister's claim of Nigel Wright acting alone.

The list of those allegedly involved in what is known now about this Conservative cover-up has become extensive: Senator Mike Duffy; former PMO chief of staff Nigel Wright; current PMO chief of staff Ray Novak; former government leader in the Senate Marjorie LeBreton; former PMO staffer and chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Resources Chris Woodcock; Senator Irving Gerstein; Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen; Senator David Tkachuk; Conservative national campaign manager Jenni Byrne; PMO staffer David van Hemmen; PMO lawyer Benjamin Perrin; PMO staffer Patrick Rogers; Senator John Wallace; and most important, the Prime Minister himself, who met with Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright on this very issue on February 13 and told senator Duffy that he needed to warp the public perception of this issue regardless of the facts. That, my friends, is called a cover-up.

The allegations are shocking: the bribery and extortion of a senator; telling him to take the money and follow their plan or face disgrace and expulsion. They told him to agree and all of his improprieties would go away; just take the money and play by the PMO rules.

The issue at hand is the question of privilege. The specific abuse that we are dealing with right now is ongoing and misleading of the House by the Prime Minister.

It is now plainly evident that Nigel Wright did not act alone. What we may have excused as ignorance and incompetence on the Prime Minister's part in June can no longer be dismissed so easily. The facts are now coming out, and they demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead the House and to mislead Canadians about the actions of the Prime Minister, his office and his inner circle. That is contempt of Parliament.

Some may ask who we are to believe. Is the Prime Minister telling the truth, or is Mike Duffy, or is the RCMP? This brings me to a difficult role that the Speaker must play in these matters.

The House does not rely on the Speaker to pass judgment on whether it is absolutely proven that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House. The question you face, Mr. Speaker, is simply put: At first glance, is it possible that contempt has taken place? I would argue that this situation has clearly passed that test. If you agree, Mr. Speaker, you must allow this issue to be debated and sent before an appropriate committee of the House, so the House can be satisfied on this matter.

The very functioning of this place is based on the assumption that all hon. members behave in an honourable manner. While opinions may differ at times, we are all bound to speak the truth. When any member abandons this principle, it is an insult to the House and to Canadians, who we are sent here to represent.

[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate today. I listened to the parliamentary secretary speak to the bill. He left out a few interesting facts.

Bill C-12, which was the government's bill, was introduced in 2007. Five long years have passed since then, and the government has not kept its commitment to changing PIPEDA and making the necessary changes. Twice the bill has fallen off the Order Paper. The government has not been taking PIPEDA very seriously at all.

I commend the member for bringing forward the bill. It would deal with two small measures. First, it talks about reporting the loss or disclosure of unauthorized access to personal information. Where a reasonable person would conclude that there exists some possible risk, the commissioner would have to be notified. The other part would give the commissioner some actual teeth to dig in and fine when personal information is lost.

We, as a government, are falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to protecting people's privacy.

I find it comical that the parliamentary secretary says that PIPEDA has kept its relevance. I am going to quote Commissioner Stoddart with respect to its relevance. She stated:

Back in 2001, when PIPEDA began coming into force, – and even when I became Privacy Commissioner in 2003 – there was no Facebook, no Twitter and no Google Street View. Phones weren't smart. “The cloud” was something that threatened picnic plans. And predictive analytics was largely the domain of tarot card readers.

A lot has changed since 2001, and our PIPEDA legislation just has not kept up.

This is a good start. It would give the commissioner more enforcement powers. Currently the commissioner can only publicly shame a company for breaching PIPEDA. It is time for the commissioner to have the strong enforcement powers needed. Some of that may have been contained in the government's bill, Bill C-12, but that bill has not seen the light of day.

Bill C-475 is with us now. It is something we need to refer to committee. We need to update our privacy laws, and we will be supporting the bill.

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

He fired him right away.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

It is 47.

[41st General Election, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative election overspending is not a series of disconnected accounting errors. There is too much of a pattern here. No, these are calculated violations of election laws with a view to gaining an edge.

The Prime Minister sets the tone. He breaks all the rules, so his MPs feel they can break the rules too. He cannot balance a budget, so his MPs do not feel the need to balance their campaign budget. The rot starts at the top. When is it going to stop?