House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Ethics November 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy said that he had repaid taxpayers for his inappropriate expenses. However, that was not the case at all. It was Mr. Wright who did so. When I learned this, we took action. That is why Mr. Wright no longer works for me and Mr. Duffy is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus.
Ethics November 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, this is addressed in the very document that the member cites, and I would refer him to that document.
Mr. Wright was very clear that Mr. Duffy was going to repay his own expenses. He never suggested at any time that he was going to pay those expenses, quite the contrary. For that reason, Mr. Wright no longer works for me and Mr. Duffy is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus.
Ethics November 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I said what I think, and I clearly said what I think to Mr. Duffy.
I said to Mr. Duffy very clearly that this was not a question of residence; this was a question of him claiming expenses that he did not actually incur. He was claiming travel expenses when living at a long-time residence.
In my view, regardless of how someone chose to interpret the rules, that is not a reasonable interpretation of the rules. For that reason, I believe he should pay the money back. Mr. Duffy had said he had done so when he had not done so, and he left the Conservative caucus.
Ethics November 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my position on this has been known for a very long time. Obviously, when we appoint members to the Senate, they are required to fulfill the conditions of appointment to the Senate.
Various members of Parliament have more than one residence. In my judgment, the issue was very different. The issue was that one could not legitimately claim travel expenses when in fact one was at a long-term residence. That was the problem. That was the problem we insisted that Mr. Duffy address. He did not, and the party and the Senate ultimately took action on that matter.
Ethics November 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my position is well known. Obviously there are members and senators who have more than one residence. People cannot claim travel expenses when in fact they are living at a long-term residence.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the committees of both chambers are responsible for their own positions, and the Senate took a very clear position.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, once again, my view on this has been very clear.
We have rules in both chambers of this House that cover legitimate expenses that members of Parliament and senators have when they travel, when they move around and when they do government business. I do not believe that any of those rules should ever be interpreted in a way that somebody would take an expense claim and get money back when they had not actually paid any money of their own out in the first place. That is inappropriate. It was inappropriate before, it is inappropriate now and it would be inappropriate under any future circumstances.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my position on this is very well known. There are many senators and members of Parliament who have more than one residence. That is not unusual. What is not appropriate in these circumstances is for somebody to claim an expense he did not actually incur. That is what Mr. Duffy did and why I told Mr. Duffy that I believed he should repay those inappropriate expenses.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, it is well known that there are many senators and members of Parliament who have more than one residence. That was not the issue in my mind. The issue was that Mr. Duffy had claimed expenses that he had not in fact actually incurred because he was living at a long-time residence. That is why I believed his actions were not appropriate and why he should repay the money he had taken from the Senate of Canada.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, once again, the problem with this situation is that Mr. Wright's gift to Mr. Duffy was not properly disclosed.
For that reason, we took action, and those people are under investigation.