Publication Search

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said that he had—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said that he had not been briefed on the audit of Senator Pamela Wallin's expenses. He insisted that he knew nothing, but last week, Senator Wallin revealed that she had indeed briefed the Prime Minister's Office in detail.

Who is telling the truth: Senator Wallin or the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on behalf of all members, I would like to thank the leader of the NDP for being here today without incident.

The Prime Minister has been very clear on this question and the leader of the NDP opposite knows very well that there is, of course, an independent audit and examination of this very matter going forward.

The Prime Minister has been very clear to all senators, including Senator Wallin, that any expenses have to be paid and have to be associated directly with their responsibilities as a senator and that any expenses that are not associated should come directly from their own personal pocket.

Mr. Speaker, so many Conservatives under police investigation and yet, so little contrition.

Let us stay on the topic of criminal investigations involving the Conservatives. In February, the Prime Minister claimed that he had personally reviewed Pamela Wallin's spending and found nothing unusual about it. However, in August 2012, the Senate administration found problems with Ms. Wallin's expense claims.

Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore this information?

Mr. Speaker, as I just said to the leader of the NDP in English, the Prime Minister made it very clear that any expenses claimed by senators have to be associated directly with their responsibilities as senators.

It is the ethical and responsible thing to do. Just as the ethical and responsible thing to do for any member of Parliament, for example, is to do work for charities and to give money to charities, not take money from charities.

The member for Halifax knows that. The member for Outremont knows that. We know that. A member of Parliament showing up at a charity event should give money to charities not take it away from charities like the leader of the Liberal Party does.

However, the leader of the Liberal Party does have access to a personal cheque that was given to him, for example, from the Canadian Mental Health Association that paid him. He took $20,000 from the Canadian Mental Health Association while speaking at a charity event. He also took $7,500 from the Nova Scotia Nature Trust. He took $10,000 from the Children of Hope, which is a charity organization that helps orphaned children.

If he believes in accountability and transparency, he should show us the money he took from the charity.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office is under criminal investigation. It is time to take this seriously and answer questions.

Has the Prime Minister spoken to a criminal investigator about this file?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

However, Canadians want to know why the NDP leader rolled right through four stop signs here on Parliament Hill. Why did he insult an RCMP officer? Why does the NDP leader think he is above the law? He demonstrated disrespect for police officers.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that the Prime Minister's Office is currently under criminal investigation. The Conservative Party and its ministers have to start answering questions seriously.

Has another PMO staffer, such as current chief of staff Ray Novak or anyone else, talked to an investigator about the criminal investigation into the $90,000 cheque that Nigel Wright gave to Senator Mike Duffy?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the RCMP has not contacted anyone in government or in the Prime Minister's Office about this matter.

Yesterday, however, the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP leader, was contacted by the RCMP here on Parliament Hill because he broke the law. Despite the fact that there are so many tourists around Parliament Hill, many of them children, he ignored the rules of the road and then insulted an RCMP officer.

Why did the NDP leader fail to respect the RCMP when it contacted him?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office is under criminal investigation. Canadians are taking that very seriously, and the minister should too. It is time to answer questions.

When was the Prime Minister informed of the criminal investigation, and did the Prime Minister or his office proactively contact the police about the possible criminal wrongdoing in his office?

Again, Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same in English as it is in French, which is that the office of the Prime Minister and government has not been contacted by the RCMP with respect to this matter.

The real question, though, is why was the leader of the NDP contacted by the RCMP here on Parliament Hill yesterday. We have kids and tourists walking all around the Hill, but he does not seem to think that matters as he speeds through five stop signs. Then when he is stopped finally by the police and asked what is going on, he says, “Do you know who I am?”

That is the kind of arrogance that Canadians do not appreciate in their political representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the real question is about the criminal investigation in the Prime Minister's Office.

Last night, Senator Wallin said in an interview that she always kept Nigel Wright in the loop about problems in the Senate.

Who else in the PMO was kept in the loop, and did Nigel Wright ever speak with the Prime Minister about his conversations with Senator Wallin?

Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered.

It is quite remarkable that the members of the NDP are so embarrassed by the conduct of their leader, they are not even prepared to defend it on the floor of the House of Commons. What I really find strange is that the NDP leader suggests that it was all just a misunderstanding. He implies that he co-operated and there was nothing wrong.

When an individual speeds through five stop signs and then insults an RCMP officer, would the individual have the arrogance to say, “Do you know who I am?” That reflects the kind of poor judgment that we sadly know is characteristic of the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Prime Minister, Nigel Wright was acting in his capacity of chief of staff. However, it is illegal to make a payment or provide a gift to a senator for anything relating to their official functions.

Furthermore, Senator Duffy stonewalled the review of his expenditures immediately after his agreement with the chief of staff.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to describe this transaction as private?

Mr. Speaker, because it was private.

Let us talk about financial donations. We just learned that the leader of the Liberal Party accepted $20,000 from a charitable organization for seniors in New Brunswick for a fundraising campaign, which lost money.

The Grace Foundation in New Brunswick asked the Liberal leader, who is a millionaire, to give back the money. We are talking about seniors living on low incomes. It is unbelievable that the Liberal leader took $20,000 from those seniors.

Will he pay that money back to the seniors?

Mr. Speaker, it is illegal to make a private payment or provide any benefit to a senator for anything relating to their official functions. It is illegal under section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act. It is illegal under sections 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code. These passages speak explicitly to fraud and bribery.

What information have the Prime Minister and his office proactively provided to the RCMP? If the answer is nothing, why have they not done so?

Mr. Speaker, the government will obviously co-operate with the RCMP in any matter. We certainly hope, however, that the leader of the Liberal Party will co-operate with the Grace Foundation from which he took $20,000. Let us be clear. He was getting paid $160,000 as an MP, but he went and took a $20,000 cheque from a group of seniors trying to do a fundraiser to buy furniture.

I would like to know how many members here go to charity events where they give money. Could they put up their hands? Alright. That is what most Canadians do. Middle-class Canadians give money to charities, they do not take $20,000 cheques--

Mr. Speaker, this is now the matter of a full RCMP criminal investigation. The government cannot pretend that the cancelled cheque or the February 20 email somehow relate to a private transaction. The chief of staff was involved and the Prime Minister's personal legal counsel drafted the agreement.

Will the Prime Minister's Office now immediately provide these documents and all information in its possession to the RCMP or is it waiting for yet another RCMP search and seizure?

Mr. Speaker, of course, the government and the Prime Minister's Office will co-operate with the RCMP in any manner.

Again, we would like to know when the Liberal leader will co-operate with the charities from which he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees while he was getting paid to act as a member of Parliament. That is about public service. While he was being paid to perform public service he was actually out there taking huge amounts of money from seniors and other charities to serve himself.

He pretends to be a defender of the middle class. Middle-class Canadians make charitable contributions. They do not take huge payments from charities, especially when it is their job to help them.

Mr. Speaker, last night, Pamela Wallin said, “...the job of a principal secretary or a Chief of Staff is to ....try and protect the Prime Minister”.

Do Conservatives agree with this statement and is it then not reasonable to assume that Nigel Wright had the Prime Minister's interest in mind when he wrote the cheque?

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to ask questions of Nigel Wright, she is free to do so. That is not government business.

I will say this. What is government business is ensuring that private members are able to get business through this House of Commons and right now the NDP is filibustering the private member's bill of the member for Calgary Northeast that would strip Canadian citizenship from serious convicted terrorists. Over 80% of Canadians support that idea. Only 6% strongly oppose it, but it turns out the entire NDP caucus represents that aberrant view that serious convicted terrorists should be able to retain their Canadian citizenship. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to divert attention from their own scandals. I wonder if they provide the same answers to the investigators who are questioning them as part of the criminal investigation into the shenanigans that went on at the Prime Minister's Office.

Has anyone from the Prime Minister's Office spoken to Nigel Wright now that he is at the centre of a criminal investigation?

Mr. Speaker, again, the Prime Minister's Office and the government have not been contacted by the RCMP about this.

The vast majority of Canadians, including NDP supporters and Quebeckers, support the idea of revoking the Canadian citizenship of anyone who is convicted of committing serious terrorist acts. We are wondering why the NDP refuses to agree to adopt the bill introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast on this.

I have a very simple question. Did the Prime Minister consult a lawyer to find out how he should act in a criminal investigation of his office pertaining to the $90,000 that the former chief of staff of this country's Prime Minister—I remind hon. members—paid to Conservative Senator Mike Duffy?

Mr. Speaker, as I said, no one at the PMO was contacted by the RCMP in this regard.

I really would beg the government ministers to answer this question now. Will the Prime Minister please take responsibility and call an inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, currently there are independent agencies which are reviewing this matter, as they should do. Of course, the government will co-operate fully with such reviews.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. It is true that the RCMP are investigating the Prime Minister's Office, which I think is a first in the history of this country.

My question goes to the partisanship, which of course is endemic to politics, but can we not rise above it in question period and in our talking points to media, and stop trying to make minor molehill incidents into major mountains?

We need to show some respect for the Canadian public and not continue to let this place degenerate.

Mr. Speaker, after weeks of defending the status quo in the Senate, the leader of the Liberal Party is now coming to the defence of Liberal Senator Mac Harb. Speaking to Global News yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party said he would “absolutely” welcome the disgraced senator back to the Liberal caucus. Media reports say that Senator Harb is refusing to repay up to $200,000 in inappropriately claimed housing allowances and instead is trying to stick taxpayers with the bill.

Defending disgraced Senator Mac Harb is not the only lapse in judgment by the leader of the Liberal Party. The leader of the Liberal Party continues to allow Liberal senators to sit in the Liberal caucus despite allegations of financial impropriety. This is just more proof that the leader of the Liberal Party lacks the judgment to be prime minister and is in way over his head.