House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I say exactly what I have said since May 15; that this is completely unacceptable. For that reason, obviously, Mr. Wright is no longer working for us and Mr. Duffy should also be removed from the public payroll.
This is crystal clear. I do not know what the difficulty is in the hon. member seeing this. I imagine the fact that he sat for 17 years and knew about bribery in Quebec explains why he does not see this, but it is crystal clear.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the story that Mr. Duffy had reimbursed his own expenses when, in fact, he had not was the story of Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright.
Let me repeat that. The story that Mr. Duffy had reimbursed his own expenses when, in fact, he had not was the story of Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright. It is completely unacceptable for me and for the public to be misled in this way. That is why Mr. Wright no longer works here and that is why Mr. Duffy should not be on the public payroll, and the Senate should take action.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, once again, the real issue is that Mr. Duffy accepted reimbursements for expenses he never incurred.
Regardless of his statements, he has not yet paid back these expenses. For that reason and because of the scheme he and Mr. Wright came up with, Mr. Wright is no longer on the public payroll and that should be the case for Mr. Duffy.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, once again, I think we have all been very clear on this. Mr. Wright was told that his actions were inappropriate and he no longer works for me. Mr. Wright has also accepted, himself, that his actions were inappropriate. He is no longer on the public payroll. He has accepted his responsibilities.
On the other hand, the reality is that Mr. Duffy still has not paid a cent back to the taxpayers of Canada. He should be paying that money back. The fact that he has not, the fact that he shows absolutely no regret for his actions and the fact that he has told untruths about his actions means he should be removed from the public payroll.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the entire premise of that question is incorrect. It is not true that all of these people knew. It is on the contrary.
The case here is, as we have said repeatedly, that Mr. Duffy took $90,000 of money from the taxpayers that he should not have taken. It was for expenses that had never in fact been incurred. He should have repaid those expenses. He was told to repay those expenses. He said that he would. He did not. For that reason, Mr. Duffy should be punished and should be taken off the payroll by the Senate of Canada.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the member is referring to. What I do know are the facts in this case.
Mr. Duffy took $90,000 of expense money that he did not actually incur. He was told to pay it back; he committed to paying it back; he in fact said publicly that he had paid it back. That turned out to be a story told by Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright. As a consequence, Mr. Wright no longer works on the public payroll, and Mr. Duffy should not be on the public payroll either.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, that was a payment from the Conservative fund to Mr. Duffy for his legal expenses. I repeat, it is not uncommon for the party to pay the legal expenses of members of its caucus on occasion, and the other parties do the same.
However, taking money from taxpayers to make inappropriate payments is another matter altogether. Mr. Duffy failed to pay that money back, and he should be punished by the Senate.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the party regularly reimburses members of its caucus for valid legal expenses, as do other parties.
What was shocking and unacceptable in this case was that Mr. Duffy had collected inappropriate money from the taxpayers of Canada. He had been told by everybody he should pay it back. He had said he would pay it back. He had said he did pay it back, and that all turned to be untrue, which is why Mr. Duffy should be removed from the Senate.
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy makes reference to the fact that the party reimbursed him for some legal expenses. That is a regular practice. The party regularly reimburses—
Ethics October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear.
Mr. Wright acted inappropriately, and for that reason, I very clearly explained to him that he no longer worked for me.
Mr. Wright is no longer on the public payroll. That was the appropriate action.
We continue to have senators who took tens of thousands—in sum total, hundreds of thousands—of dollars of inappropriate expenditures. They should be removed from the public payroll by the Senate of Canada.