Session overview
- The dominant theme of the session was the RCMP court documents released that day, which named 12 Conservative officials whose emails were under review and alleged that crimes including bribery, fraud, and breach of trust occurred in the Prime Minister's Office in connection with the Wright-Duffy affair.
- Stephen Harper and his Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra repeatedly cited the RCMP finding that the investigator was 'not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer' as their central defence.
- Opposition questioners from both the NDP and Liberals pressed on the February 22 'We are good to go from the PM' email, the role of Senator Irving Gerstein in discussions with Deloitte about the Senate audit, and whether the Prime Minister's earlier public statements about his knowledge were accurate.
- The government tabled cyberbullying legislation in response to the suicides of teenagers including Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, the one exchange outside the ethics controversy to receive a substantive response.
- Questions on affordable housing, the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry contract, the Obed Mountain toxic coal slurry spill, and a national securities regulator also arose but received brief or deflecting answers.
The Prime Minister confirmed that the government was tabling specific legislation on cyberbullying that same day, representing a concrete legislative commitment in direct response to the question.
Exceptionally specific: cites two timestamped emails from February 22 â Wright writing he wanted to speak to the PM before things were 'final' and then 'We are good to go from the PM' â and asks exactly what the Prime Minister approved in that hour.
Rather than addressing whether the Prime Minister gave explicit go-ahead to Nigel Wright before the repayment scheme was executed, Calandra attacked the Liberal leader for praising dictatorships, cited marijuana legalization as a priority, and closed by asking 'Where is the 40 million bucks?' â abandoning any pretence of responding to the question.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair asked who ordered Senator Gerstein to do everything in his power to arrange the Deloitte audit conclusions â this was never answered.
- Thomas Mulcair asked how many people in the Prime Minister's Office were under investigation given that 12 Conservative officials' emails appeared in the RCMP documents â this was deflected without a direct answer.
- Charlie Angus asked who moved Privy Council employee Chris Montgomery out of the way and instructed Senator Gerstein and Senator Tkachuk to whitewash the audit into Mike Duffy's potential misspending â this received no substantive answer.
- Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe asked whether the Prime Minister had been informed of 'point 3' of the repayment agreement, specifically the condition that 'the party will not inform anyone' â this was not answered.
- Ralph Goodale asked who told the Privy Council Office to lie to the House, given that a paper trail was alleged to exist on PCO computers â this was not addressed.
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister wants to change anything in his testimony regarding the Senate expenses scandal.
A direct and specific yes/no question asking whether the Prime Minister wishes to change any part of his testimony on the Senate expenses scandal, grounded in the ongoing scandal context.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, est-ce que le premier ministre souhaite changer quoi que ce soit à son témoignage dans le scandale des dépenses au Sénat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, is there anything the Prime Minister wants to change about what he has said concerning the Senate expense scandal?
Harper states he was clear, that he made the matter public on May 15 when he learned of it, and that Wright and Duffy are the individuals under RCMP investigation.
Harper affirms his position with a specific date (May 15) and identifies the two individuals under RCMP investigation, but does not directly answer whether he wishes to change his testimony.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear. As soon as I learned of this matter on May 15, we made that matter public. We have taken appropriate actions against Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy who now, as the RCMP confirmed, are the individuals under investigation on this matter.
Mulcair cites a May 14 document in which Nigel Wright wrote that the Prime Minister knew Wright had 'personally assisted Duffy', asking whether that is true given Harper's claim he only learned on May 15.
Highly specific: cites a document dated May 14 in which Nigel Wright wrote that the Prime Minister knew Wright had 'personally assisted Duffy', directly contradicting Harper's May 15 claim, and asks whether that is true.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. The Prime Minister just said that he did not know until May 15, but unfortunately for him, on May 14, Nigel Wright wrote that the Prime Minister in fact did know that he, Wright, had âpersonally assisted Duffyâ. Is that true?
Harper says Wright told the RCMP he informed the Prime Minister that Duffy had agreed to repay the money, but did not tell him of his personal decision to pay it himself.
Harper engages directly with the Wright RCMP documents, drawing a distinction between knowing Duffy would repay versus knowing Wright personally paid, but does not fully resolve the contradiction raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. It is right in the documents about what Mr. Wright told the RCMP. He said he told me that Senator Duffy had agreed to repay the money. He told me that he did not inform me of his personal decision to pay that money himself. When I learned of that, I took the appropriate action.
Mulcair cites two emails from February 22 showing Wright sought the PM's approval and then wrote 'We are good to go from the PM', asking what the Prime Minister approved in that one-hour window.
Exceptionally specific: cites two timestamped emails from February 22 â Wright writing he wanted to speak to the PM before things were 'final' and then 'We are good to go from the PM' â and asks exactly what the Prime Minister approved in that hour.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps trying to hold onto a detail. We are talking about the whole scheme that took place in his office. On February 22, Nigel Wright wrote, âI do want to speak to the PM before everything is considered final...â. An hour later he wrote, âWe are good to go from the PM...â. What did the Prime Minister approve during that hour?
Harper states the RCMP documents show he was aware on February 22 that Duffy had agreed to repay the money, and quotes the RCMP investigator as saying there is no evidence the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment.
Harper cites the RCMP documents to say he was aware Duffy agreed to repay the money on February 22, and quotes the RCMP investigator's conclusion that there is no evidence of his involvement in the repayment, but does not directly answer what he approved during that hour.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is answered right in the RCMP documents. They say that Nigel Wright said the Prime Minister was aware on February 22 that Senator Duffy had agreed to repay the money. I later learned on May 15 that was not true, and let me tell members what the conclusion of the RCMP is on this. After months of interviews and review of documents, the investigator says he is not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer. The RCMP could not be clearer on this.
Mulcair presses Harper to explain what 'We are good to go' meant in Wright's February 22 email.
Concise and pointed follow-up that directly challenges Harper to define what 'We are good to go' meant, grounded in the previously cited documentary evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âWe are good to goâ. Good to go with what?
Harper says 'good to go' referred to Duffy repaying his own expenses, as Duffy had publicly announced, and that Duffy has since been appropriately sanctioned by the Senate.
Harper provides a specific answer â 'good to go' meant Duffy repaying his own expenses â and ties it to Duffy's public statements and subsequent Senate sanction, though it remains self-serving.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, good to go with Mr. Duffy repaying his own expenses, as he has acknowledged I told him to personally, as he told everybody he had done, including the Canadian public; and when we found that was not true, we took the appropriate action, and he has been appropriately sanctioned by the Senate.
Mulcair cites Harper's May 28 statement that he never gave 'any' instruction to staff on the Duffy scandal, contrasts it with court documents showing Wright sought PM approval, and asks why the Prime Minister said something to Parliament he knew was not true.
Highly specific: cites Harper's May 28 statement to Parliament that he gave 'any' instruction to staff, contrasts it with RCMP court documents showing Wright sought PM approval, and asks directly why Harper said something to Parliament he knew was not true.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 28, when the Prime Minister was first questioned about the deal with Mike Duffy, he said that he never gave âanyâ instruction to his staff on how to handle the Duffy scandal, but we now know from court documents that Nigel Wright went to the Prime Minister for approval of the deal. Why did the Prime Minister say something to Parliament that he knew was not true?
Harper repeats that he was told Duffy would repay the money himself, learned otherwise on May 15, and took appropriate action resulting in Wright and Duffy being under investigation.
Harper repeats his prior explanation about learning on May 15 and taking appropriate action, but does not address the contradiction between his May 28 statement and the court documents, nor the charge that he misled Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear, I was told that Mr. Duffy was going to repay the money himself, something he announced on national television for everybody. That story proved not to be true. When I learned that it was not true from Mr. Wright, on May 15, we took the appropriate action, and that is why Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are now under investigation.
Trudeau asserts the RCMP revealed the PMO was guilty of corruption and asks whether the Prime Minister still believes he bears no responsibility for the corruption in his own office.
Mostly rhetorical: characterizes RCMP findings as confirming 'corruption' and a 'cover-up' â characterizations not found in the documents â and asks a vague question about whether Harper bears 'any responsibility' rather than citing specific facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve leaders who tell the truth. The RCMP revealed this morning that the Prime Minister's Office was guilty of corruption and that the government had been covering it up for months. Does the Prime Minister still believe that he bears no responsibility for the corruption in his own office?
Harper says the RCMP confirmed that Wright and Duffy are under investigation and that it confirmed the Prime Minister told the truth.
Harper contests Trudeau's framing by citing what the RCMP documents actually confirm â two individuals under investigation â and asserts he told the truth, but does not engage substantively with the responsibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, what the RCMP has confirmed in its documents today is that two individuals, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright, are under investigation for their actions in this matter and it has also confirmed that this Prime Minister has been telling exactly the truth.
Trudeau asserts that Canadians have learned the Prime Minister misled the House and asks whether the Prime Minister will take responsibility and agree to testify under oath.
Combines a rhetorical assertion that the Prime Minister misled the House with a specific ask â whether he will testify under oath â which gives it some accountability value despite the partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis des mois, les Canadiens d'un bout à l'autre du pays doutent de ce que ce gouvernement leur dit. Or, aujourd'hui, nous apprenons que le premier ministre a effectivement induit la Chambre en erreur. Les Canadiens s'attendent à mieux de leurs leaders. Le premier ministre prendra-t-il ses responsabilités et acceptera-t-il de témoigner sous serment?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for months, Canadians across the country have had doubts about what this government has been telling them. Today, we learned that the Prime Minister did in fact mislead the House. Canadians expect better from their leaders. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and agree to testify under oath?
Harper states the RCMP confirmed that Wright and Duffy are under investigation and that the Prime Minister told the whole truth in this matter.
Harper repeats the RCMP's two key conclusions without addressing Trudeau's specific ask about whether he will testify under oath.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la GRC a confirmĂ© deux choses aujourd'hui. PremiĂšrement, elle a confirmĂ© que ce sont MM. Wright et Duffy qui sont sous enquĂȘte relativement Ă cette affaire. DeuxiĂšmement, elle a conclu que le premier ministre a dit toute la vĂ©ritĂ© dans cette affaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP confirmed two things today. First, it confirmed that Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are under investigation in this matter. Second, it found that the Prime Minister told the whole truth in this matter.
Trudeau asks when the Prime Minister will put his country ahead of his party and tell Canadians the truth about the scandal.
Primarily rhetorical: invokes the member for EdmontonâSt. Albert, accuses the Conservative caucus of helping cover up a scandal, and asks a vague question about putting country ahead of party rather than seeking specific accountable information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the member for EdmontonâSt. Albert said that the Conservative caucus had become what it once mocked, non-answers like that were what he meant. Two weeks ago everyone in the Conservative caucus could have stood up for Canadians and, instead, chose to stand up to help their leader cover up this scandal. When will the Prime Minister finally put his country ahead of his party and tell Canadians the truth?
Harper pivots to the Senate vote on sanctioning senators, noting Conservative senators voted to sanction while Liberal senators voted to protect them, and ends with an attack on Trudeau unrelated to the question.
Harper does not address Trudeau's question at all, instead pivoting to the Senate vote, attacking Liberal senators, and ending with a gratuitous reference to Trudeau admiring a 'Communist dictatorship', which is entirely disconnected from the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was only a few sitting days ago that the Senate was asked to pronounce judgment on senators who had behaved inappropriately. Conservative senators voted to sanction to those members. Liberal senators, of course, voted not to do that, voted to protect those senators, which is very consistent with the kind of Communist dictatorship that the member so admires.
Mulcair cites RCMP court documents showing Nigel Wright said he went to the Prime Minister for approval, and asks whether Harper is calling Wright a liar.
Specific and pointed: cites the RCMP documents to establish that Wright said he went to the Prime Minister for approval, and asks directly whether Harper is calling Wright a liar.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Nigel Wright dit qu'il est allé voir le premier ministre pour obtenir son approbation. C'est écrit noir sur blanc dans les documents de la GRC déposés en cour. Le premier ministre est-il en train de nous dire que Nigel Wright est un menteur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright said that he went to see the Prime Minister to get his approval. It is written in black and white in the documents the RCMP filed in court. Is the Prime Minister trying to tell us that Nigel Wright is a liar?
Harper states the documents show Wright said Duffy was going to repay his own expenses, and that only later did Duffy do the contrary, at which point Harper took appropriate action.
Harper addresses what the RCMP documents say Wright told the PM â that Duffy would repay his own expenses â but avoids the direct binary question of whether Wright was lying, and does not address the approval aspect of the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est écrit noir sur blanc que M. Wright a dit que M. Duffy allait rembourser ses propres dépenses. Ce n'est que plus tard que celui-ci a décidé de faire le contraire. Lorsque je l'ai appris, j'ai agi immédiatement de façon appropriée.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is written in black and white that Mr. Wright said that Mr. Duffy was going to repay his own expenses. It was not until later that he decided not to. When I learned of that, I immediately took the appropriate action.
Mulcair quotes RCMP documents in which Wright says the Prime Minister knew he had 'personally assisted Mike Duffy with repaying his expenses', and asks yes or no whether Harper asked Wright what personal assistance he had given Duffy.
Highly specific: quotes directly from RCMP documents â Wright saying the Prime Minister knew he had 'personally assisted Mike Duffy with repaying his expenses' â and asks a clear yes/no question about whether Harper asked Wright what that personal assistance was.
Source text
Actually, Mr. Speaker, in those documents what Nigel Wright does in fact say is that the Prime Minister knew that he had âpersonally assisted Mike Duffy with repaying his expensesâ. Did the Prime Minister ask Nigel Wright what personal assistance he had given to Mike Duffy, yes or no?
Harper states that Wright told the RCMP he did not inform the Prime Minister of his eventual personal decision to pay the $90,000 to Senator Duffy.
Harper cites Wright's RCMP statement that he did not tell the Prime Minister of his 'eventual personal decision to pay the $90,000', engaging with the documents but not directly answering the yes/no question of whether Harper asked Wright what 'personal assistance' meant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the RCMP interviewed Mr. Wright on this question, and he was extremely clear. He said that he did not tell the Prime Minister of his eventual personal decision to pay the $90,000 to Senator Duffy. It could not be clearer from Mr. Wright or from the RCMP. The hon. member should accept it.
Mulcair asks the Prime Minister to tell Canadians what he knew about whether Nigel Wright had personally assisted Mike Duffy.
Reasonably specific follow-up pressing the PM to state directly what he knew about Nigel Wright personally assisting Mike Duffy, though it is somewhat cumulative after earlier exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps trying to hang his hat on the detail of the form of that personal assistance. He keeps avoiding the clear question as to whether or not he knew that Nigel Wright had personally assisted Mike Duffy. Could he tell Canadians what he knew?
Harper states it is in black and white that he did not know, says the RCMP confirms it, and attacks Mulcair with an unrelated reference to 17 years.
Harper simply asserts 'it is in black and white that I did not know' and cites RCMP confirmation, then pivots to an attack on Mulcair, without providing any substantive elaboration on what he did or did not know.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is in black and white that I did not know. The RCMP confirms it. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, it did not take it 17 years to figure that out.
Mulcair asks yes or no whether the Prime Minister was aware of the original plan to repay Mike Duffy's expenses using Conservative Party funds.
Specific yes/no question grounded in the documented sequence of events, asking whether the Prime Minister knew of the original plan to use Conservative Party funds to repay Duffy's expenses.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre était-il au courant du plan original de faire rembourser les dépenses de Mike Duffy en utilisant l'argent du Parti conservateur, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, was the Prime Minister aware of the original plan to pay back Mike Duffy's expenses using Conservative Party money or not?
Harper says his consistent position from the beginning was that Duffy had to repay his own expenses, and that when he learned otherwise he took appropriate action.
Harper states his consistent position that Duffy was obligated to repay his own expenses and that he took appropriate action when he learned otherwise, but does not directly answer yes or no whether he knew of the Conservative Party repayment plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début, ma prise de position est que M. Duffy était obligé de rembourser ses propres dépenses. Quand j'ai appris que c'était le contraire, j'ai pris les mesures appropriées.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, my position has been that Mr. Duffy had to pay back his own expenses. When I learned that that was not what he had done, I took the appropriate action.
Mulcair cites a February 22 Wright email stating he had 'the go-ahead from Gerstein' to tell Duffy 'there will be an arrangement to keep him whole on the repayment to cover it', asking whether the PM is saying Wright was lying about that too.
Highly specific: cites a February 22 Nigel Wright email containing the language 'there will be an arrangement to keep him whole on the repayment to cover it' attributed to Gerstein, directly contradicting public statements by the PM and Gerstein, and asks whether Wright was lying.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Senator Irving Gerstein have said that the Conservative Party never agreed to repay any of Mike Duffy's expenses. However, on February 22, Nigel Wright wrote that he had âthe go-ahead from Gerstein to tell Mike Duffyâ that âthere will be an arrangement to keep him whole on the repayment to cover itâ. Is the Prime Minister saying that Nigel Wright was lying about that too?
Harper states that Wright repaid Duffy's expenses while Wright and Duffy falsely let it be known that Duffy had repaid them himself, and that both have been sanctioned and are under investigation.
Harper confirms Wright repaid Duffy's expenses but does not address the specific Gerstein email or the Conservative Party arrangement cited by Mulcair, deflecting instead to the impropriety of Wright and Duffy misrepresenting who paid.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that Mr. Wright repaid Mr. Duffy's expenses, although the two of them let it be known, to the contrary, that it was Mr. Duffy himself who had repaid his expenses. That was obviously not the appropriate thing to do. That is why those two individuals have been sanctioned and are under further investigation.
Mulcair notes the RCMP believes Wright committed bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, and asks who else in the Prime Minister's office knew and who else was involved.
Grounded in RCMP characterizations of Wright's conduct (bribery, fraud, breach of trust) and asks two specific questions about who else in the PMO knew and was involved, though slightly compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged that his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, was under investigation. The RCMP says that it believes the Prime Minister's chief of staff committed bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Who else in his office knew? Who else was involved?
Harper says the RCMP documents confirm it is Wright and Duffy who are under investigation for an improper payment, and that those who undertook these actions should be held responsible.
Harper deflects entirely to confirming Wright and Duffy are under investigation and that those who undertook these actions should be held accountable, without addressing who else in the office knew or was involved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to cite the RCMP, he would note that it is these two individuals who are under investigation for what was an improper payment, I think something Mr. Wright himself admits. That is the appropriate thing, that those who undertook these actions be held responsible and accountable.
Mulcair cites Harper's June 5 statement that only Wright knew, his October 24 statement that a few people knew, and RCMP documents showing 12 people were aware, and asks who else was involved and who else knew.
Highly specific and factually grounded: cites three distinct statements Harper made in the House (June 5: only Wright knew; October 24: a few people knew; RCMP documents: 12 people aware) and asks directly who else was involved and who else knew.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually, the question was, âWho else was involved? Who else knew?â June 5, the Prime Minister said in the House that it was no one but Nigel Wright; October 24, the Prime Minister said in the House that a few people knew; in these documents, 12 people are aware of it. That is the real question. Who else was involved? Who else knew?
Harper states the record is clear that sole responsibility rests with Wright and Duffy, and that the government will co-operate to ensure those responsible are held accountable.
Harper asserts sole responsibility rests with Wright and Duffy and pledges co-operation with the investigation, but completely ignores the specific contradiction between his three evolving statements and the 12 people identified in the RCMP documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the record is very clear. From all documents, the sole responsibility for these actions rests with Mr. Wright and with Mr. Duffy. That is why these two individuals are under investigation. Mr. Wright has accepted his responsibility and co-operated fully. That is not the case for Mr. Duffy. We will ensure that we provide all co-operation and assistance to ensure that those who are responsible are held accountable.
Mulcair asks how many PMO staff are under investigation given that RCMP court documents list 12 Conservative officials whose emails were being investigated, including half a dozen from the PMO.
Cites specific court documents (80 pages), a specific date (November 7), a specific number (12 Conservative officials), and asks a pointed accountable question about how many PMO staff are under investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on November 7 the Prime Minister claimed that his office was not under investigation. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that his office was not under investigation to the best of his knowledge. In the 80 pages of court documents released today, the RCMP listed 12 top Conservative officials whose emails were being investigated. That list includes half a dozen staff from the Prime Minister's Office. How many in the Prime Minister's Office have been under investigation? How many have to be under investigation before the Prime Minister admits that his office is indeed under criminal investigation?
Harper says the documents make clear only Wright and Duffy are under investigation, and quotes the RCMP saying the PM gave clear orders for complete co-operation.
Harper quotes the RCMP document about co-operation orders but does not address the specific question about how many PMO staff are under investigation, instead repeating the 'two individuals' talking point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the documents make clear there are two individuals who are under investigation, Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy, as has been said from the outset of this affair. Let me say specifically, what the RCMP says about the PMO. The RCMP investigator reports that he had âclear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requestedâ. That is exactly what we have done.
Mulcair asks who ordered Senator Gerstein to pay Duffy's fraudulent expenses and to contact Deloitte to manipulate the audit process.
Asks a specific and pointed question about who ordered Senator Gerstein to do everything in his power to fix the Deloitte audit results, grounded in documented facts about Gerstein being asked to pay Duffy's expenses and contact Deloitte.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is nice reading. It just has nothing to do with the question. Le sénateur Gerstein s'est fait demander de payer les dépenses frauduleuses de Duffy. Il s'est ensuite fait demander de parler à Deloitte pour essayer de manipuler le processus de vérification. Qui lui a ordonné de faire tout ce qui était en son pouvoir pour truquer les résultats de la vérification?
Hansard translation: Dommage que cette citation n'ait absolument rien à voir avec la question, monsieur le Président. Senator Gerstein was asked to pay for Duffy's fraudulent expenses. He was then asked to talk to Deloitte to try to manipulate the audit process. Who ordered him to do everything in his power to fudge the results of the audit?
Harper says the RCMP made clear that Wright and Duffy are under investigation and that the government will assist the RCMP to ensure accountability.
Harper only repeats that Wright and Duffy are under investigation and that the RCMP will continue its work, completely ignoring the specific question about who ordered Gerstein to interfere with the audit.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la GRC a dit clairement que c'est MM. Wright et Duffy qui sont sous enquĂȘte dans cette affaire. Ăvidemment, nous nous attendons Ă ce que la GRC continue son travail, et nous l'assisterons pour nous assurer que ces personnes seront tenues pour responsables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP clearly said that Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are the ones under investigation here. We obviously expect the RCMP to continue its work and we will provide assistance to ensure that these individuals are held accountable.
LeBlanc asks why Senator Irving Gerstein remains a member of Conservative caucus and a senator, given RCMP affidavits showing he planned to use donors' money illegally to pay Duffy and called Deloitte to have it back off its audit.
Cites RCMP affidavits with specific allegations about Gerstein using donors' money illegally and calling Deloitte, and asks a direct question about why Gerstein remains in Conservative caucus and the Senate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to RCMP affidavits, Senator Irving Gerstein, the Conservative Party money man, planned to use donors' money, illegally, to pay off Mike Duffy. He even picked up the phone to call Deloitte's to have it back off on audit, and he was not even a member of the audit committee. Therefore, why is Senator Irving Gerstein a member of the Conservative caucus? In fact, why is he even a senator at all?
Calandra says the documents show this is between Wright and Duffy, that the PM gave clear orders to co-operate, and praises the PM's leadership in open and honest government.
Calandra deflects entirely to the 'Wright and Duffy' talking point and PM co-operation talking points, never addressing why Gerstein remains in caucus or the Senate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is very clear from the documents that have been put into the courts is that this, again, is between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister, as stated by the RCMP, had given clear orders to provide complete co-operation and assistance with this investigation, in contrast to the Liberals, who always protect the status quo. We always stand up for taxpayers and the Prime Minister is, again, showing the type of leadership that Canadians have come to depend on: open and honest government. That is what they can always rely upon from Conservatives.
LeBlanc asks when the PM will tell Canadians the truth, citing an RCMP officer's sworn statement that several crimes occurred in the PMO and that Wright waited for the PM's permission before executing his plan.
Cites a sworn RCMP affidavit referencing several crimes committed in the PMO and that Wright got the PM's authorization before executing his plan, but the closing question is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un membre de la GRC a déclaré sous serment à un juge que plusieurs crimes ont été commis dans le bureau du premier ministre du Canada. La GRC confirme aussi que Nigel Wright a commis un acte de corruption en sa qualité officielle de directeur de cabinet et que M. Wright a attendu la permission du premier ministre avant d'exécuter son plan. Le premier ministre attend-il que la GRC défonce la porte du 24 Sussex avant de dire la vérité aux Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, under oath, a member of the RCMP told a judge that several crimes were committed in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. The RCMP also confirmed that Nigel Wright engaged in corruption in his official capacity as chief of staff and that Mr. Wright waited for the Prime Minister's approval before carrying out his plan. Is the Prime Minister waiting for the RCMP to break down the front door of 24 Sussex before he tells Canadians the truth?
Calandra says the RCMP confirmed the PM did not know, that the PM would not have endorsed the scheme had he known, and that the PM ordered complete co-operation with the investigation.
Calandra repeats the RCMP's statement that the PM did not know and ordered co-operation, but does not address the specific allegation that Wright waited for the PM's permission before executing the plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP has said confirms that the Prime Minister did not know about this. That is something the Prime Minister has been saying for months. Those members refuse to listen. Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. The RCMP says that it has absolutely no evidence that shows the Prime Minister knew. Also, the Prime Minister has been saying, right from the beginning, that we would co-operate and assist the investigation in any way possible. Those were the orders given by the Prime Minister to his office, and the RCMP has confirmed that is what has happened. An open, accountable, transparent government is what Canadians want. That is what they get from the Prime Minister day in and day out.
LeBlanc asks what the PM is waiting for before telling Canadians the truth, citing the RCMP affidavit swearing that three crimes took place in the PMO and that Wright only acted after getting the PM's go-ahead.
Reiterates the sworn RCMP affidavit claims about three crimes in the PMO and Wright acting with the PM's go-ahead, but the question is largely a repeat of Exchange 19 with a rhetorical conclusion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians realize the seriousness of this situation. An RCMP officer swore an affidavit before a judge stating that three crimes took place in the Prime Minister's Office. The RCMP swears that Nigel Wright acted corruptly in his official duties as the Prime Minister's chief of staff, but only after explicitly getting the Prime Minister's go-ahead. Therefore, what is the Prime Minister waiting for? For the RCMP to kick down the door at 24 Sussex Drive before telling Canadians the truth?
Where's the $40 million?
Oh, oh!
Calandra repeats the PM's co-operation orders and non-knowledge, then attacks the Liberal leader for praising dictatorships and prioritizing marijuana legalization.
Calandra repeats the PM's co-operation and non-knowledge talking points, then pivots to attacking the Liberal leader over praising dictatorships and marijuana legalization, with no connection to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP said was that the Prime Minister immediately ordered his PMO to co-operate and to assist with the investigation, and that is what it did. What it also said was that the Prime Minister did not know anything about this. What the Prime Minister has said is that had he known, he would have in no way endorsed this. The Liberals know nothing about accountability. They have a leader who praises dictatorships. His main priority is the legalization of marijuana. As for the member for Medicine Hat's outstanding questionâ
Where is the 40 million bucks?
Leslie asks how the PM could claim in May that he had no knowledge of the legal agreement with Duffy, when PMO emails released by the police show Wright got authorization for the deal in February.
Cites specific PMO emails released by police showing Wright got authorization in February, and asks a pointed question about the consistency of the PM's May claim of no knowledge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister explain how it was possible for him to claim last May that he had no knowledge of the legal agreement with Mike Duffy, when PMO emails released by the police show that Nigel Wright got authorization for the deal in February?
Calandra says the PM told Duffy to repay any expenses he did not incur, that Duffy lied on TV about repaying them, and that the RCMP confirmed the PM did not know about the arrangement.
Calandra does not address the February authorization emails or reconcile the February timeline with the PM's May claim, instead repeating the 'repay expenses' instruction and 'PM did not know' talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said to him, âRepay any expenses that you did not incur.â It has been quite obvious. Since February, he was told that. He then went on TV and told people he had paid and had taken a mortgage out on his home. That was wrong. The RCMP confirmed that this Prime Minister did not know about the arrangement. Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Nigel Wright has to accept the consequences of what he has done. Senator Duffy should accept the consequences of what he has done, and the NDP and Liberals should stop defending the status quo.
Leslie cites a February 22 document stating 'We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne' regarding the PM's lawyer negotiating with Duffy's lawyer, and asks what the PM said to Wright that gave him the go-ahead.
Cites a specific document dated February 22 with a direct quote ('We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne'), and asks a precise and answerable question about what the PM said that gave Wright the go-ahead.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question, so let us try again. Documents from February 22 of this year say, âWe are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payneâ. This was about the Prime Minister's lawyer negotiating with Mike Duffy's lawyer. What did the Prime Minister say to Nigel Wright on February 22 that gave him the go-ahead?
Calandra says the PM told Duffy to repay inappropriate expenses, that Duffy lied about having done so, and that Nigel Wright made his own decision, with the RCMP confirming the PM did not know.
Calandra does not address what the PM said on February 22 or what 'good to go from the PM' means, instead repeating the general 'repay your expenses' instruction, deflecting responsibility to Wright and Duffy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what he said, not only to Senator Duffy but to all of caucus, was, âRepay the expenses that you did not incurâ. It is a very simple instruction. If they have an expense they did not incur, they had better repay it, or they are not going to get the support of this caucus. We did not tell Senator Duffy to go on TV and lie to people about how he had repaid those expenses. He made that decision on his own. Nigel Wright made the decision on his own. These two people are under investigation. What is very clear is this: Had this Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such an action. The RCMP confirmed that, and the RCMP confirmed that this Prime Minister is assisting in every way possible.
Blanchette-Lamothe cites a February 22 email from Wright to Perrin and others stating 'I have approval for point three under a few conditions,' and asks who gave that approval â was it the Prime Minister?
Cites a specific email from February 22 from Nigel Wright to Benjamin Perrin and others in the PMO, quoting directly from it ('J'ai l'approbation pour le point trois sous quelques conditions'), and asks specifically who gave Wright that approval.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le 22 février dernier, Nigel Wright a envoyé un courriel à Benjamin Perrin et à d'autres personnes au sein du Cabinet du premier ministre. Dans ce courriel concernant l'accord de remboursement des réclamations illégales de Duffy, Nigel Wright affirme: « J'ai l'approbation pour le point trois sous quelques conditions ». Qui a donné son approbation à Nigel Wright? Est-ce que ce serait le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on February 22, Nigel Wright sent an email to Benjamin Perrin and other individuals at the Prime Minister's Office. In this email regarding the agreement to repay Duffy's illegal claims, Nigel Wright wrote, âI now have the go-ahead on point 3, with a couple stipulationsâ. Who gave approval to Nigel Wright? Was it the Prime Minister?
Calandra says the PM told all caucus members including senators to repay inappropriate expenses, that the PM did not know, and that the PM ordered his office to co-operate fully.
Calandra does not address who gave approval for 'point three' or the specific email, instead repeating the general 'repay expenses' instruction and attacking the NDP leader.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, the Prime Minister not only told Senator Duffy but all of caucus, including MPs and senators, that if they had any inappropriate expenses, they had to repay those expenses. It has been very clear for months that this is the standard this Prime Minister has expected. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister did not know. That is in these documents. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister ordered his office to co-operate and to assist in any way possible. That is real leadership. Members can contrast that to the leader of the NDP, who waited 17 years and could not figure out if he got a bribe, yes or no.
Blanchette-Lamothe cites Wright's email condition that 'the party will not inform anyone' about point three of the repayment deal and asks whether the PM was made aware of point three.
Cites a specific Nigel Wright quote about conditions of the deal including a secrecy provision where 'the party will not inform anyone,' and asks directly whether the PM was informed of point three of the repayment agreement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est intéressant, mais c'est loin de répondre à la question. Wright avait donc l'approbation sous quelques conditions. Qu'on me laisse ainsi citer Nigel Wright au sujet d'une de ces conditions: J'aimerais savoir si le sénateur Duffy avait l'intention d'informer quelqu'un à propos du point 3 [...] Je présume que je connais la réponse, mais j'aimerais qu'elle soit explicite. De son cÎté, le parti n'informera personne. Est-ce que le premier ministre a été mis au courant de ce point 3 de l'accord de remboursement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, but it does not answer the question. Wright had approval with a couple stipulations. I would like to quote what Nigel Wright said about one of these stipulations: I would like to understand who if anyone Sen. Duffy ever intends to inform about point 3.... I assume that I know the answer, but I would like it to be explicit. For its part, the Party would not inform anyone. Was the Prime Minister aware of the third point of this repayment agreement?
Calandra says the PM told Duffy on February 13 to repay inappropriate expenses, that Duffy's TV story was false, and that RCMP documents confirm the PM did not know about the scheme.
Calandra completely ignores the secrecy provision and the specific question about point three, repeating only the February 13 'repay expenses' talking point and that the RCMP confirmed the PM did not know.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, on February 13, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister, and he told Senator Duffy to repay any inappropriate expenses. That is what he was told. Senator Duffy then went on TV and told a different story. We know that was not true. We also know that the Prime Minister did not know. It was confirmed by RCMP documents that he did not know. Had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. What is also very important is the leadership this Prime Minister has shown in helping and assisting in the investigation and in making sure that the RCMP have access to whatever they need on this investigation. That is real leadership, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who waited 17 years.
Young asks the PM to update the House on action the government will take to protect Canadians from online crime, citing the suicides of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, and Todd Loik.
Softball government-backbench question inviting the PM to announce legislation on cyberbullying, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, online intimidation has been a factor in the tragic suicides of several Canadian teenagers. Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, Todd Loik, and all of those who have been tragically affected by cyberbullying. Our government has been clear that there is a point where bullying goes beyond just bullying and becomes criminal behaviour. One of the most egregious forms of cyberbullying is the posting of intimate images of people against their will. Can the Prime Minister please update this House on the action our government will take to protect Canadians from online crime?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and her interest in this issue. Trop de jeunes vies ont été perdues au Canada à cause de l'intimidation criminelle, et récemment, surtout à cause de celle de l'Internet. I have met with victims of these families, and we have pledged to take action. Today our government will be tabling legislation on these specific matters. Let me just say, I think we all understand here that nothing we do can bring back the precious lives that have been lost, but hopefully the actions we are taking today will do some things to change things in the future and will also provide these families with some sense that their concerns are taken seriously and some sense of justice for their daughters.
Harper announces that the government will be tabling legislation that day specifically on cyberbullying matters, and notes that he has met with victims' families and pledged action.
Harper provides a substantive answer announcing that legislation on cyberbullying would be tabled that day, referencing specific victims and conveying a clear policy commitment.
Boulerice asks who ordered Senator Gerstein to pay Duffy's fraudulent expenses and to contact Deloitte to manipulate the audit findings.
Asks a specific question about who ordered Senator Gerstein to do everything in his power to fix the Deloitte audit conclusions, grounded in documented facts, though it is a repeat of Exchange 17.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le sénateur Gerstein s'est fait demander de payer les dépenses frauduleuses de Duffy. Ensuite, il s'est fait demander de parler à Deloitte pour manipuler le rapport de vérification que la firme était en train de faire. On veut savoir qui lui a ordonné de faire tout ce qui était en son pouvoir pour arranger les conclusions de Deloitte. Qui?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein was asked to pay Mr. Duffy's fraudulent expenses. Then he was asked to talk to Deloitte to meddle with the audit report that the firm was preparing. We want to know who ordered him to do everything in his power to manipulate Deloitte's findings. Who was it?
Calandra says the PM did not know and would not have endorsed the scheme, the RCMP confirmed that, and the PM ordered co-operation, then attacks Boulerice for supporting separatist causes.
Calandra does not address who gave orders to Gerstein at all, instead repeating the PM's non-knowledge and co-operation talking points and attacking Boulerice's federalist credentials.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, had the Prime Minister known anything about this, he would have in no way endorsed this scheme. The RCMP confirmed that the Prime Minister did not know. The RCMP have also stated that the Prime Minister has ordered his office to be co-operative and to assist in any way possible. When we talk about honesty in government, this is a member who ran as a federalist but continues to support separatist causes in this country. When we talk about being open and honest, he should maybe be open and honest with constituents. Is he a federalist, or is he separatist? That would be a good starting point.
Boulerice asks why Senator Gerstein, who he calls a fraudster and manipulator who tried to fix the audit results, is still being paid by taxpayers as the Conservative Party's fundraising director.
Asks why Gerstein, identified as director of Conservative Party fundraising, remains on the public payroll given his alleged attempt to manipulate the audit, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que l'on apprend aujourd'hui, ce sont les mathĂ©matiques particuliĂšres de ce premier ministre. Soudainement, une seule personne peut devenir quelques personnes, voire mĂȘme 12 personnes. C'est un calcul assez intĂ©ressant. Irving Gerstein a tentĂ© clairement de manipuler les rĂ©sultats d'une vĂ©rification des dĂ©penses des sĂ©nateurs conservateurs. M. Gerstein est le directeur de la collecte de fonds du Parti conservateur. Pourquoi ce fraudeur, ce manipulateur, est-il encore payĂ© Ă mĂȘme l'argent des contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today we learned about the Prime Minister's peculiar math. All of a sudden, one person can turn into a few people, even 12 people. That is a rather interesting calculation. Irving Gerstein clearly tried to manipulate the results of an audit of Conservative senators' expenses. Mr. Gerstein is the director of fundraising for the Conservative Party. Why is this fraudster, this manipulator, still on the public payroll?
Calandra says only that Duffy had to repay improper expenses, that Wright accepted full responsibility, and attacks Boulerice for making 29 donations to Québec solidaire.
Calandra does not address why Gerstein remains a senator or on the public payroll, instead attacking Boulerice for donations to Québec solidaire and repeating Wright/Duffy talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I know. Only this member can tell us who the fundraising chair for Québec solidaire is, because he has made 29 separate donations to them. What this is about is Senator Duffy incurring expenses that he was not entitled to. He needed to pay those back. At the same time, he went on TV and told Canadians that he did that. That was wrong. We know that Nigel Wright did that. That was also wrong. Nigel Wright has accepted sole and full responsibility. The additional information we have today confirms that the Prime Minister's Office has been open and honest and has provided any assistance needed and that the Prime Minister did not know, and had he, he would have never approved such--
Angus asks whether the PM, when briefed about the deal on February 22, was informed that Senator Gerstein had been brought in for discussions with Deloitte about Mike Duffy's audit.
Cites RCMP documents showing Gerstein was brought in for discussions with Deloitte, and asks a specific and answerable question about whether the PM was informed of Gerstein's involvement when briefed on February 22.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, documents released by the RCMP today show us that Senator Gerstein was brought in for discussions with Deloitte about paying back Mike Duffy's expenses. I guess the cover-up theory was that they would pay back the expenses, and they would make the audit go away. When the Prime Minister was briefed about this deal on February 22, was he informed that Senator Gerstein had been brought in for the discussions with Deloitte about Mike Duffy's audit?
Calandra says the PM told caucus on February 13 to repay improper expenses, and on May 15 learned that Duffy's story about repaying on his own was untrue, with no mention of February 22 or the Gerstein-Deloitte discussions.
Calandra completely skips February 22 and only addresses the February 13 'repay expenses' instruction and May 15 revelation, never addressing whether the PM was told about Gerstein's Deloitte discussions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, on February 13, the Prime Minister told not only MPs but senators, âIf you have expenses that you did not incur, you should repay those expensesâ. He said that on a number of occasions in the House. I have said that on a number of occasions. That is the standard that we expect on this side of the House. I think that is the standard all Canadians expect. We also learned on May 15 that the story Senator Duffy had told about repaying those expenses on his own was not true. That is why, of course, the Prime Minister has stated that had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Also, he has shown leadership in making sure that his office provides any assistance necessary on this matter.
Angus asks who moved Privy Council employee Chris Montgomery out of the way and instructed Senators Gerstein and Tkachuk to whitewash the audit into Duffy's potential misspending, given that Montgomery had warned the scheme was compromising senators.
Cites specific named individuals (Chris Montgomery, Senators Gerstein and Tkachuk) and specific documented facts from the RCMP file, asking a precise question about who moved Montgomery aside and instructed the senators to whitewash the Duffy audit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I noticed in his little run through the calendar, he jumped over the date of February 22, when he was briefed on this. What we also learned from the RCMP file is that Privy Council employee Chris Montgomery objected to this scheme, and he warned that the senators were actually compromising themselves. However, the scheme went on, and Mr. Montgomery was soon gone. Who moved Chris Montgomery out of the way and instructed Senator Gerstein and Senator Tkachuk to whitewash an audit into the potential misspending by Mike Duffy?
Calandra only says the RCMP documents confirm the PM ordered co-operation, then attacks Angus over a redistribution commission quote about inappropriate involvement in the electoral distribution process.
Calandra does not address Chris Montgomery, his removal, or who instructed the senators, instead launching a sustained personal attack on Angus over electoral redistribution and pivoting to NDP ethics issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is clear in the documents we received today is that the Prime Minister ordered his office to co-operate and to assist in any way possible. However, having this member talk about ethics is very strange. Let me quote something: âThis was the first hint of what the Commission considers to be inappropriate involvement by a Member of Parliament in the electoral distribution processâ. Who is that talking about? It is the member for TimminsâJames Bay. Maybe in a supplementary question we will talk about the other member of the NDP who also was implicated in trying to gerrymander their ridings. Then maybe we could talk about the 17 years it took the Leader of the Opposition to disclose the bribe heâ
Goodale says the RCMP believe a broad-based conspiracy involving Wright, Duffy, Perrin, Woodcock, Rogers, Novak, van Hemmen, Hamilton, Byrne, Gerstein, LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart-Olsen, and the PCO was conducted to cover up Duffy's situation, and asks who told the Privy Council Office to lie to the House.
Names 13 specific individuals alleged to be involved in a broad-based conspiracy described in RCMP documents, references PCO involvement, and asks who told the Privy Council Office to lie to the House, though 'lie to this House' is an assertion rather than a documented fact.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP believe there was a broad-based conspiracy within and beyond the Prime Minister's Office to cover up Mike Duffy's situation. The police believe that conspiracy involved the commission of criminal offences. The players were all the Prime Minister's senior entourage: Wright and Duffy, Perrin and Woodcock, Rogers, Novak, van Hemmen, Hamilton and Byrne, Gerstein, LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart-Olsen. Now we know the PCO was involved too. Despite their denials, a paper trail is on their computers. Who told the Privy Council Office to lie to this House?
Calandra quotes the RCMP report saying the PM gave clear orders for complete co-operation and that the RCMP is not aware of any evidence the PM was involved in the repayment, saying the facts are what the facts are.
Calandra quotes the RCMP document about PM co-operation orders and PM non-involvement, but does not address the specific allegation about the PCO being instructed to lie or who may have given such instructions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously, he did not read any part of the report, because this is what it says: â...the PMO, advised my office that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requestedâ. That is what is actually in the report. It also goes on to say, âI am not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer.â He can get up in this House and make all kinds of accusations, but the facts are what the facts are. When it comes to showing leadership, it is this Prime Minister who shows it every day.
Goodale argues that RCMP documents contradict the Prime Minister's claim he heard nothing between February 13 and May 15, and asks whether the Prime Minister would survive in the private sector given what happened on his watch.
Goodale cites RCMP documents and a specific date (February 13/May 15) to challenge the Prime Minister's timeline, though the closing CEO analogy weakens the accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us that after he ordered Duffy, on February 13, to repay his expenses, he, the Prime Minister, heard nothing further until May 15, but from the RCMP documents today, that cannot be true. There was at least one later briefing by Wright, and maybe others. At least in broad terms, the Prime Minister knew Wright had some personal role. This was the Prime Minister's Office: his staff, his lawyers, his most trusted inner circle. Would any CEO in the private sector keep his job if so much got screwed up on his watch?
Calandra pivots to the Liberal sponsorship scandal, claims the Prime Minister took immediate action on May 15, and touts Conservative electoral victories as evidence of trust.
Calandra deflects entirely to the sponsorship scandal and Liberal record, never addressing the RCMP documents or the briefing timeline raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, this is a member who was a minister in a government that took $40 million. I do not remember him losing his job. Members can contrast that to the leadership of this Prime Minister, who, when he found out on May 15, ordered the Prime Minister's Office to co-operate and assist the RCMP in this investigation. That is real leadership. That is the type of leadership they get from this Prime Minister day in and day out. That is why Canadians keep rewarding this side of the House with electoral victories, because they know they can trust us to put their needs first.
Sullivan asks when the Conservatives will restore long-term funding for affordable housing and commit to addressing the housing crisis, citing 200,000 families at risk from expiring agreements.
Sullivan cites a specific figure (200,000 families at risk) and references expiring agreements, giving the question some factual grounding, but it is padded with partisan history and the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today a rally for affordable housing was held on Parliament Hill, and no Conservative even bothered to show up. While the Liberals were in power they eliminated funding for affordable housing, until NDP leader Jack Layton forced them to start investing again. Now the Conservatives are threatening to end affordable housing agreements, putting 200,000 more families at risk. When will the Conservatives do the right thing, restore long-term funding, and commit to addressing this housing crisis?
Kenney states the government supports nearly 600,000 individuals and families with subsidized housing annually, references CMHC mortgage subsidies and the housing first program, but does not address the expiring agreements.
Kenney offers a concrete figure (nearly 600,000 individuals and families) and references CMHC long-term agreements and the housing first program, but does not address the specific concern about expiring agreements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in point in fact, all the NDP does on housing is attend protests. This government actually provides housing to people who need it. Every year, we provide support for nearly 600,000 individuals and families with subsidized housing. CMHC provided mortgage subsidies for long-term 25- to 50-year agreements. With housing first, what we are actually doing, instead of funding advocacy and political work, is actually giving people the shelter they need with action, not just talk.
Ayala cites the Chambre de Commerce du Canada, Banques alimentaires Canada, and the Fédération canadienne des municipalités as calling for federal action on housing, notes a 40% cost increase in Montreal over 10 years, and asks the minister to commit to long-term funding.
Ayala cites three named organizations (Chambre de Commerce du Canada, Banques alimentaires Canada, Fédération canadienne des municipalités) and a specific statistic (40% cost increase over 10 years), making a reasonably grounded ask for long-term funding commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela ne semble pas ĂȘtre suffisant. La Chambre de Commerce du Canada, Banques alimentaires Canada et la FĂ©dĂ©ration canadienne des municipalitĂ©s s'accordent toutes pour dire que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral doit s'attaquer Ă la crise du logement. Ă MontrĂ©al, le coĂ»t du logement a augmentĂ© de 40 % en 10 ans. C'est insoutenable pour les familles canadiennes. Le ministre va-t-il s'engager Ă offrir un financement Ă long terme afin de rĂ©soudre la crise du logement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that does not seem to be sufficient. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Food Banks Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities all agree that the federal government needs to address the housing crisis. In Montreal, the cost of housing has increased by 40% in 10 years. This is unsustainable for Canadian families. Will the minister commit to provide long-term funding to solve the housing crisis?
Kenney repeats that the government supports nearly 600,000 Canadians with subsidized housing and references the Logement d'abord program, without committing to long-term funding or responding to the cited organizations.
Kenney repeats the same figures from the previous exchange and references Logement d'abord but does not address the specific organizations' calls or commit to long-term funding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout ce que les députés du NPD font en ce qui concerne l'hébergement est d'assister aux manifestations. Le gouvernement agit pour donner de l'hébergement aux Canadiens qui en ont besoin. C'est la raison pour laquelle, chaque année, nous fournissons un soutien à presque 600 000 Canadiens et leur famille au moyen de logements subventionnés. Avec notre nouveau programme Logement d'abord, nous nous assurons que les ressources sont réservées aux seules familles qui ont besoin d'hébergement et pas de politique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all the NDP members ever do about housing is attend protests. The government is working to provide housing for Canadians in need. That is why, every year, we provide support for almost 600,000 Canadians and their families through subsidized housing. With our new housing first program, we are ensuring that resources are reserved for families who need housing, not funding political work.
Merrifield asks the Minister of Transport what additional measures the government is taking to enhance the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods, citing recent derailments in his riding.
This is a government-backbench softball referencing the Speech from the Throne and a local derailment, designed to invite a ministerial announcement rather than hold the government to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne made it very clear that our government will remain committed to protecting public safety and that we will take targeted action to increase the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods. This has become an increasing concern, particularly in my riding because of recent derailments. Can the Minister of Transport tell the House what additional measures our government is taking to further enhance the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods?
Raitt announces a protective directive requiring Canadian municipalities to receive information for emergency planning, training, and first responder support, citing collaboration with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and railway companies.
Raitt provides a substantive answer, announcing a specific protective directive requiring municipalities to receive information for emergency planning and referencing collaboration with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and railway companies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for his direct work in the derailment that did happen in Gainford, Alberta. He was there for his constituents and he served the public very well in that matter. I am very pleased today to speak of the fact that we have issued a protective directive in order to ensure that Canadian municipalities have the information they need in order to provide appropriate emergency planning, training, and information to first responders in communities where the transportation of dangerous goods happens. I think it is an excellent communication between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the railway companies, and of course, ourselves. We should be very proud moving forward.
MacAulay asks when a new contract for the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry will be signed, whether service will be maintained at its present level, and whether the contract will be for five years or more.
MacAulay asks three specific, answerable questions about the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry contract: timing of signing, service level, and contract duration, making this a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is aware that the contract for the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service expires at the end of March. I hope the government is aware of how critical this transportation link is. It is so important to the economy of Prince Edward Island and Pictou County in Nova Scotia. Can the minister indicate to the House when a new contract will be signed? Will the contract maintain the service at its present level. Will the contract be for five years or more?
Raitt references a $13 million commitment announced in June of last year by the Minister of Fisheries to ensure continued service, but does not address the timing, service level, or duration questions asked.
Raitt references a $13 million commitment announced in June of last year but does not answer when the new contract will be signed, whether service will be maintained at present levels, or whether the term will be five years or more.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course the government is aware of its importance, and that is exactly why the Minister of Fisheries announced in June of last year our commitment of $13 million for this ferry to ensure that it continued to serve the needs of the community in Prince Edward Island. We are very proud of the work we do with our eastern ferries to ensure that we have good service and good transportation links across this country, and we will continue to work with the communities.
Mulcair asks who ordered the whitewashing of the Deloitte audit into Senate expenses.
Mulcair asks a single, highly specific, and directly answerable question about who ordered the whitewashing of the Deloitte audit into Senate expenses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, who ordered the whitewashing of the Deloitte audit into Senate expenses?
Calandra attacks Mulcair for waiting 17 years to report a bribe offer and contrasts this with the Prime Minister's alleged openness, without mentioning the Deloitte audit.
Calandra does not address the Deloitte audit at all, instead attacking Mulcair over his alleged delay in reporting a bribe offer, which is entirely unrelated to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know this is troubling for the leader of the NDP because of the contrast to his waiting 17 years to talk about the fact that he was offered a bribe. He sees the trouble now that Quebec is going through because of his delay in speaking about that. When he contrasts himself to the Prime Minister who, as soon as he found out, took immediate action, opened up his office and ordered them to co-operate and assist the RCMP, I know he must be embarrassed because there is no way he can compare to the Prime Minister when it comes to open, accountable, reliable government. The Prime Minister shows that leadership every single day.
Holder asks the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what measures were taken to help the Walji family, in response to implications that the immigration system failed them.
This is a government-backbench question designed to allow the minister to defend the immigration system on a specific case, framed sympathetically rather than as accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for London West, I was terribly saddened to hear of the tragic events surrounding the Walji family. It was a shock to our whole community. Some media reports and even opposition politicians have implied that the immigration system has somehow failed the Walji family. Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please advise the House on what measures were taken to help the Walji family?
Alexander states the Walji family was offered several opportunities to become permanent residents and that a pathway to permanent residence was offered but not taken, while criticizing opposition members for politicizing the case.
Alexander offers condolences, states the family was offered several opportunities to become permanent residents and a pathway to permanent residence, providing some factual content while also attacking the opposition for politicizing the case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, and I hope on behalf of all members of this place, I would like to extend condolences to the Walji family's friends and loved ones. Although this matter is still under investigation, let me assure the House that this family was offered several opportunities to become permanent residents. They were offered a pathway to permanent residence and that path was not taken. On this side of the House, we are engaged in mourning the tragic loss of this family and we will not engage, like some in the opposition, in politicizing cases of this sort, as the member for LondonâFanshawe has done, for example. We encourage everyone to join us in mourning this tragic loss of life.
Bevington notes a tailings pond dike failure at the former Obed Mountain coal mine released one billion litres of toxic coal slurry into the Athabasca River on October 31, with a toxic plume expected to cross into the Northwest Territories within two weeks, and asks what Environment Canada is doing to protect northern Canadians.
Bevington cites a specific date (October 31), location (former Obed Mountain coal mine near Hinton, Alberta), volume (one billion litres), and cross-boundary trajectory, and asks a specific question about what Environment Canada is doing to protect northern Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on October 31, a tailings pond dike at the former Obed Mountain coal mine near Hinton, Alberta, failed, releasing one billion litres of toxic coal slurry into the Athabasca River. The resulting toxic plume is travelling north and is expected to cross into the Northwest Territories within two weeks. As protection of transboundary and northern waterways is a federal jurisdiction, what is Environment Canada doing to protect northern Canadians from this toxic spill?
Carrie states that Environment Canada is supporting the province, providing assistance as required, and that enforcement officers are looking into the situation, without providing any specific protective measures.
Carrie's answer is vague, stating only that Environment Canada is supporting the province, providing assistance as required, and looking into the situation, without any specifics about protective measures for northern Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada is supporting the province and providing assistance as required. Environment Canada's enforcement officers are looking into the situation, and our government will continue to take action against those who break our environmental laws.
Plamondon cites opposition from leaders of COGECO, Québecor, Couche-Tard, Metro, and Jean Coutu to a pan-Canadian securities commission, listing harms including loss of influence, capital flight, job losses, and weakening of Montreal's economy, and asks why the federal government is pursuing this.
Plamondon cites named Quebec business leaders and companies (COGECO, Québecor, Couche-Tard, Metro, Jean Coutu) and lists specific harms, making a reasonably grounded question, though it ends with a broad why-question rather than a specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les chefs d'entreprises de fleurons québécois, comme COGECO, Québecor, Couche-Tard, Metro et Jean Coutu, dénoncent de nouveau le gouvernement fédéral, qui veut mettre en place une commission pancanadienne des valeurs mobiliÚres. Perte d'influence et d'expertise, éloignement des capitaux pour les entreprises du Québec, pertes d'emplois et affaiblissement de l'économie de Montréal sont autant d'effets néfastes notés par ces entrepreneurs. Le pire, c'est que le fédéral s'attaque à un systÚme qui fonctionne déjà trÚs bien. Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral s'acharne-t-il à dépouiller Montréal de son expertise financiÚre et à nuire au développement des entreprises du Québec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the chief executives of leading Quebec companiesâsuch as COGECO, QuĂ©becor, Couche-Tard, Metro and Jean Coutuâare again condemning the federal government, which wants to establish a national securities commission. These entrepreneurs say that this move will result in the loss of influence and expertise, distance capital from Quebec companies, kill jobs and weaken Montreal's economy. The worst thing is that the federal government is attacking a system that works very well. Why is the federal government so bent on stripping Montreal of its financial expertise and hindering the development of Quebec companies?
Saxton states Canada is the only developed country without a single securities regulator, announces a cooperative regulator established with Ontario and British Columbia, and encourages all provinces and territories to join, without addressing the Quebec-specific concerns raised.
Saxton defends the cooperative securities regulator and mentions Ontario and British Columbia joining, but does not address the specific concerns raised by the named Quebec companies about loss of influence, jobs, or capital.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only developed country in the world without a single securities regulator. That is why we have been working with the provinces and the territories to establish a single securities regulator for some time. We are pleased to have recently announced the establishment of a co-operative regulator with Ontario and British Columbia. This regulator will promote jobs and growth by better protecting investors, enhancing Canada's financial services sector, supporting efficient capital markets, and managing systemic risk. I strongly encourage all provinces and territories to join in this participation as well.
Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) rose on a point of order to correct the record regarding comments he made during debate the previous night, clarifying that Canadian veterans can be confident that their military service record and any active Veterans Affairs files are available to them.
- CPC Mr. Parm Gill
Source text
Mr. Speaker, regarding the comments I made during the debate last night in the House, I would like to correct the record. Canadian veterans can be confident that their military service record and any active Veterans Affairs files are available to veterans.