Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 45 of 45
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2015-06-09 14:17 [p.14807]
Mr. Speaker, trying to cover up Senate scandals has become routine for the Prime Minister's Office: watering down an internal Senate report and a $90,000 cheque for Senator Duffy. The Auditor General's report on the Senate scandal is even more distressing.
Was the Prime Minister's Office in contact with the senators before the report was released?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2015-06-09 14:18 [p.14807]
Mr. Speaker, that member and that government refuse to come clean with Canadians about whether the Prime Minister's Office was in touch with any senators before this report was tabled.
Why are Conservatives so afraid to tell the truth? Could it be because eight of the senators who are named in the report were appointed by the Prime Minister? Or could it be because the Prime Minister's hand-picked Senate Speaker was also named in the report? Or maybe it could be because Senate leaders named in the audit still have their very own appeals process?
The Conservatives have a history of cover-ups. Are they now working with Conservative senators to do damage control?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2015-06-09 14:19 [p.14808]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than a scandal-plagued self-policing Senate and that member's embarrassing non-answers. The Auditor General is calling for transformative change and independent Senate oversight.
After coming here to reform the Senate, now the Conservatives are defending the status quo and Senate corruption. Do they agree with the Senate Speaker that those senators “should be thanked by the population” for their actions, or do they agree with us and the Auditor General that transformative change is needed now?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2015-05-25 14:19 [p.14056]
Mr. Speaker, credibility matters, as the Conservatives are learning.
According to an RCMP court document, the Prime Minister's Office played a “key role” in altering and falsifying the 2013 audit of Mike Duffy's expenses. Other documents show that the Deloitte audit report was changed a total of seven times to remove criticisms of expense claims, including references to the Ottawa home of Mike Duffy.
Does the Prime Minister deny that his office intervened to falsify the findings of the audit into the expenses of Conservative Senator Mike Duffy?
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2015-05-08 11:37 [p.13656]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's videos revealed the identity of Special Operations troops to terrorists. The PMO staff broke DND protocols that protect our Armed Forces. They said they had DND's consent; they did not.
We now know PMO staff received two briefings on operational security protocols, yet they still published these propaganda videos. Why has not anyone in the PMO been fired for putting our troops and their families at risk?
View Peter MacKay Profile
CPC (NS)
View Peter MacKay Profile
2014-05-26 14:26 [p.5581]
Mr. Speaker, of course I reject the entire rambling preamble of inaccuracies in the member's question. She would know that we did have a process that involved consultation with the Barreau du Québec. She was part of the consultation with respect to the formation of a list. We sought outside expert advice as well in this process. As a result of a Supreme Court decision we are now in a position where we will move forward and have a name that will result in the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice for Quebec very soon.
View Peter MacKay Profile
CPC (NS)
View Peter MacKay Profile
2014-05-26 14:28 [p.5581]
Mr. Speaker, again, the preamble of the question from my honourable colleague is incorrect. It is completely false.
We followed a process that she herself took part in. In fact, she had good things to say about Justice Nadon.
The hon. member, who was part of the process in fact, called Mr. Justice Nadon a very able jurist. She said he was a great judge, so it is a bit rich for her to stand up now and somehow leave the impression she was not supportive of the name going forward.
View Peter MacKay Profile
CPC (NS)
View Peter MacKay Profile
2014-05-26 14:29 [p.5582]
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to look deep inside herself and ask herself about that process and its fairness because, might I remind her and the House, she was a part of it. I can guarantee her we will be coming forward with the name of a very qualified appointment based on legal expertise, based on ability and merit. If she plays her cards right, she might even be considered.
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2014-01-30 14:29 [p.2364]
Mr. Speaker, in question period, the Prime Minister keeps insisting that Senator Irving Gerstein is not under investigation by the RCMP, but Mr. Gerstein's name comes up repeatedly in court documents. He played a role in the payoff, and the RCMP has never said that he is not a part of its investigation.
Can the Prime Minister share with Canadians how he knows that Senator Gerstein is not under investigation?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2014-01-30 14:30 [p.2364]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when asked about Mr. van Hemmen, the Prime Minister replied:
...it is a long-standing government policy...to provide legal assistance to such individuals.
However, these fees were related to the RCMP investigation into Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy. Why are the taxpayers being left on the hook to defend PMO staff from the RCMP investigation into Conservative corruption?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2014-01-30 14:30 [p.2364]
Mr. Speaker, when the news broke first through Nigel Wright and then through the RCMP that many people in the PMO were involved, did the Prime Minister confront his staff and demand answers as to why they had misled him?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2014-01-27 14:38 [p.2109]
Mr. Speaker, speaking of questionable ethics, recently the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke had the bright idea to campaign against the incandescent light bulb. She tried to turn the light out on her own government's legislation. Not only did she campaign against her own party's policy, if we go to the website, we can donate. Where does it bring us? To a Conservative riding association.
This clearly breaks the rules. The question is: What sanctions is this member facing for breaking the rules?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-12-10 14:18 [p.2012]
Mr. Speaker, this morning, before forcing the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to go in camera, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister opposed the NDP motion calling for an investigation into the Benjamin Perrin emails that were deleted by the Privy Council Office.
Who in the Conservative government instructed the parliamentary secretary to do such a thing?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-12-10 14:19 [p.2012]
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that Conservatives went in camera because they were scared of an NDP motion to investigate the deleted emails, but before the Conservatives shut out the public, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs said that no investigation was necessary.
Does the Prime Minister share this view? Does he believe, like his parliamentary secretary, that no investigation is needed into how the government handled these missing emails?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-12-10 14:20 [p.2013]
Mr. Speaker, we started this scandal with a Conservative cover-up, and today the cover-up continues. Conservatives evaded questions, they misled the public and they kept crucial information secret. If Conservatives really do not think that an investigation is necessary into what happened to Ben Perrin's emails, then why do they not just give Canadians a little bit of accountability, maybe an early Christmas gift? Why do they not actually release all the relevant emails to the public today?
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2013-11-28 14:38 [p.1505]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources stated, “I do not question the conduct of my chief of staff”. Chris Woodcock's misconduct includes: not disclosing his knowledge that Nigel Wright gave Senator Duffy $90,000, an action the RCMP considers criminal; taking part in the whitewash of a Senate report; and taking part in a cover-up.
Let us give the minister a mulligan. Does he really not question the conduct of his chief of staff, Chris Woodcock?
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2013-11-26 15:02 [p.1393]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition day motion from my colleagues down the way.
I will review a bit, some of what is worth reviewing. It is important for people to understand what we are talking about, especially when there has been a pause for question period in the debate. The motions says:
That, given the recent sworn statements by RCMP Corporal Greg Horton, which revealed that: (i) on February 21, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office had agreed that, with regard to Mike Duffy's controversial expenses, the Conservative Party of Canada would “keep him whole on the repayment”; (ii) on February 22, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff wanted to “speak to the PM before everything is considered final”; (iii) later on February 22, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff confirmed “We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne”; (iv) an agreement was reached between Benjamin Perrin and Janice Payne, counsels for the Prime Minister and Mike Duffy; (v) the amount to keep Mike Duffy whole was calculated to be higher than first determined, requiring a changed source of funds from Conservative Party funds to Nigel Wright’s personal funds, after which the arrangement proceeded and Duffy's expenses were re-paid; and (vi) subsequently, the Prime Minister's Office engaged in the obstruction of a Deloitte audit and a whitewash of a Senate report; the House condemn the deeply disappointing actions of the Prime Minister's Office in devising, organizing and participating in an arrangement that the RCMP believes violated sections 119, 121 and 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada...
It reminds the Prime Minister of his own code of conduct for ministers, which surely applies to him. It states on page 28 that “Ministers and Ministers of State are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their offices and the exempt staff in their employ”.
The Prime Minister is a minister. He is one of the ministers to whom that rule ought to apply, so it is hard to understand how he could think he should not take responsibility for the actions of his own staff if it were the case that we were to believe he did not know what was going on, which is a little hard to believe in his case. Therefore, the cover-up continues.
The Prime Minister's Office fraud squad have really been the authors of a scheme whereby we have seen the bribing of a sitting senator and seen it swept under the rug until the truth leaked out by CTV's Robert Fife.
I see across from me the cowering Conservative caucus members. The silence from that side today has been deafening when only one of them stood to speak to the motion. It is a remarkable thing. Aside from vitriol from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, no one else on that side has deigned to make a speech on this all day long.
An hon. member: It is not true.
Hon. Geoff Regan: One of them said it is not true. If that is not true, let us hear those members speak. There is a lot of time this afternoon. I hope we will hear from a number of them. They can speak on this and tell us what they really think, because we know some of them are telling the media what they think, although they are doing it anonymously. They are saying that they are concerned about this. They are not happy with the Prime Minister's actions or his office, and the way this has been handled, in their view, has been slipshod. Why do they not get up now in the House this afternoon and talk about that?
It is a sad day for democracy and accountability. Canadians who I have talked to in recent weeks have been shocked to see the level the government will go to cover up its misdeeds.
Canadian taxpayers also want to know who will take responsibility for the ethical rot that has beset the Conservative government. Let us think about that. Who should take responsibility? Should it be perhaps the person who appointed Senator Duffy? Should it be perhaps the person who hired Nigel Wright to be his chief of staff? Should it be the person who promoted the other key players involved in this corrupt scheme to seniors jobs in ministers' offices?
Sadly, the person, and we all know who we are talking about, refuses to accept any responsibility and comes up with story after story. It is an ever-changing story.
It is a sad day when even Mayor Ford is more open and honest about his behaviour than his fishing buddy, the Prime Minister. Of course, Mayor Ford was caught and admitted it after he was caught.
The fact is that nobody on the other side of the House wants to defend this ethical rot. It is clear that even Conservative backbenchers recognize that what started out as a Senate scandal has spread well beyond Duffy and Wright and has now engulfed about a dozen senior Conservatives and even the Prime Minister himself. It is clear, as more and more Conservative members are saying in private, that the strategy of crisis management from the Prime Minister's Office has been a disaster from day one.
Let me turn to something I found in this week's The Hill Times, which quotes senior Conservatives as saying:
Everybody needs people who will ask you the questions that you don’t necessarily want to be asked. Everybody needs to be challenged a bit. It makes you think better.
These senior Conservatives were talking about the Prime Minister and the fact that a prime minister needs people in his or her office who challenge him or her.
Could any of us in the country really imagine that from the current Prime Minister, that he would want to have that? We have a Prime Minister who has such determined control not only over his own office, but over his ministers and what they are allowed to say and even what the backbenchers are allowed to say. Everything has to be approved by the PMO.
It is clear to me that the Prime Minister is not interested in having the kind of people in his office that these senior Conservatives are suggesting he ought to have. Apparently he knows better than anybody else and does not need to have anybody's advice or anyone really challenging him. That is not good enough.
There is another angle to this that we have not heard a lot about. That is how what we had here last winter was a problem for the Conservative Party. It was a Conservative Party political PR problem. What was it solved with? It was solved with a $90,000 contribution. Of course, any individual in Canada can make a maximum contribution to a political party of $1,200, so we know that $90,000 is an illegal contribution. That is in addition to the other aspects of this in terms of making payment to a senator to make some kind of a deal.
Let us go through the record, which clearly shows that the Prime Minister is not being completely open and honest with Canadians about his involvement in this corrupt cover-up scheme. The Prime Minister says that he never knew anything. He heard no evil, saw no evil and spoke no evil. Nigel Wright's own words show that this is unbelievable.
On February 22, an email, let us call it email the first one on that day, went from Mr. Wright. He said he wanted to “speak to the PM before everything is considered final”. An hour later or thereabouts, we had a second email. He said “We are good to go with the PM”.
Most Canadians and most sensible people would say that he must have spoken to the PM during that hour. There must have been a conversation between Nigel Wright and the Prime Minister between those two emails. It sure sounds like the Prime Minister gave the okay.
The Prime Minister claims that all he ever said was that Mr. Duffy had to make the repayment himself. If that were the case, surely he had been saying that for days and even weeks before February 22. Surely he had made that very clear already, so why would Nigel Wright have to go to him to get him to approve what he had already been saying had to happen? That does not make much sense.
The only thing that really makes sense is that Nigel Wright went to the Prime Minister, told him, it seems, that the Conservative Party was prepared to pay $30,000 at that point to pay off Mr. Duffy's debt, which would be equally improper. It would appear the Prime Minister thought that was okay. It was good to go. The Prime Minister gave the thumbs up.
That is certainly the interpretation that most sensible people would take from those two emails. It is hard to imagine any other conceivable interpretation. Talk about a smoking gun.
What about Nigel Wright's statement to the RCMP? He said, “The PM knows, in broad terms only, that I personally assisted Duffy when I was getting him to agree to repay the expenses”.
That one statement makes it crystal clear that the Prime Minister knew that Wright personally assisted Duffy. It leaves not a lot of doubt. It is clear that, as the RCMP alleges, Conservative operatives in the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister's hand-picked Senate leaders either broke the law or took part in a cover-up designed to make the scandal go away. That is shameful.
The Prime Minister's story regarding the PMO ethics scandal has fallen apart. This is obviously a very serious issue, and hence the motion today, which is very appropriate. Today's motion talks about the PMO fraud squad's potential and criminal cover-up in a series of events that the RCMP believes may have violated three sections of the Criminal Code, not to mention the Elections Act in terms of election spending or donations to political parties, which effectively this was.
Today's motion also talks about the role of senior Conservative operatives and senior senators, hand-picked by the Prime Minister., who participated in a whitewash of a Senate report and apparently attempted to influence an independent audit being conducted by Deloitte. The record is pretty clear on that as well. We have seen lots of reports on this in the media. They come directly from the documents obtained by the RCMP.
The list of suspects in this caper is indeed long and probably going to grow. On the Senate side there are Senators Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Marjory LeBreton, David Tkachuk, Irving Gerstein, and, of course, former Conservative poster boy Mike Duffy. In the Prime Minister.r's Office, either now or formerly, we have Nigel Wright, Benjamin Perrin, Ray Novak, Chris Woodcock, Patrick Rogers, and David van Hemmen. A bunch of them have been promoted since this all took place.
It is quite a twisted story, with a lot of conflicting accounts that need to be cleared up so that Canadians can have confidence in Parliament. That is why there ought to be hearings on this and testimony from people such as the Prime Minister.
For instance, Senator Duffy said in a statement from the Senate that the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had provided assurances to him that his behaviour was acceptable and that he would give him a $90,000 cheque to cover the Prime Minister's tracks. Senator Duffy also confirmed that he was told to take the $90,000, keep his mouth shut, and go along with the cover-up or the Conservatives would kick him out of the Senate. That is the threat that he alluded to.
We are here today pushing for more transparency. We have been pushing the Conservatives for that for quite a while. We are here today trying to get to the truth for Canadians.
Of course, there are many other things we ought to be discussing in the House of Commons. Canadians have many other concerns, such as job creation; youth unemployment; the environment; pipeline issues; the debt loads of individual Canadians, which are very high; the cost of post-secondary education; the situation in Syria; and the new agreement with Iran and the government's attitude toward it. There are these things and many others. The Auditor General's report released today expresses concern about the basic safety measures that are supposed to be overseen by the government, especially when it comes to rail and food safety. We have seen things like the listeriosis crisis.
However, instead of talking about these important things, we are mired in this scandal. Why are we still talking about this scandal? Why are we mired as we are? It is because the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions. He refuses to come clean. He refuses to allow the House to hold a hearing and to testify under oath about what he knew and did not know and what happened here.
That is all he has to do: testify. It is time for the Prime Minister to speak under oath and tell the truth. That would get us on to other things, I would hope.
The Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary has been here today showing contempt for hard-working Canadian taxpayers, as he has shown, unfortunately, in question period for weeks. Really, he and the Prime Minister are showing contempt for the values their party once prided itself on and on values the Reform Party also prided itself on.
Of course, the parliamentary secretary has memorized the words that the kids in short pants in the Prime Minister's Office have given him to say. He has memorized them very well, and the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary would like nothing more than to sweep this whole affair under the rug. That, of course, was the original idea when Nigel Wright and others in the PMO were overseeing what was happening in the Senate and trying to manage this whole thing so that it not only would not come out in the Deloitte report but also so that the Senate committee, they hoped, would whitewash it after Deloitte had done so. Thankfully, in the end that did not happen.
It is clear that this scandal falls squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. It is time that he and his parliamentary secretary stopped stonewalling. It is time they stopped trying to cover up. It is time they were held accountable to Canadians for what has occurred on their watch.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2013-11-26 15:25 [p.1396]
Mr. Speaker, I remember reading The Stepford Wives. I think it was back in high school that we were required to read it, and I thought it was quite illuminating. It was an excellent book and it made one think about the condition of women in our society, but that is not what the member is talking about today. In particular, she is talking about the situation in the Prime Minister's Office.
In relation to the question that this has become a very insular Prime Minister's Office in which there is a determination to have absolute control, that is a reason to be concerned. Does her prescription for it solve the problem, or is it the right answer? I have seen a number of prime ministers' offices over the years, and they have not all been like this one.
What the resources of the Prime Minister's Office should be is certainly open to debate. I do not share the member's view that it should be abolished, but what we need most of all is a Prime Minister who has the confidence in his team and in Canadians not to be a control freak.
View Robert Chisholm Profile
NDP (NS)
Mr. Speaker, RCMP documents show that Senator Irving Gerstein was actively helping to clean up the mess around the audit into Mike Duffy's residency and expenses. Senator Gerstein even called someone he knew at Deloitte, somebody, by the way, who just happened to be a maximum donor to the Conservative Party. Was the Prime Minister aware that Senator Gerstein attempted to use his influence to alter that audit?
View Robert Chisholm Profile
NDP (NS)
Mr. Speaker, at some point, the government is going to have to answer questions about undue influence. The list of Conservatives involved in the Mike Duffy affair from the Prime Minister's Office, the Senate, and the party continues to grow, yet few have been reprimanded.
My question to the Prime Minister is, will there be any consequences for Senator Irving Gerstein, from him, for attempting to subvert this audit?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-11-20 14:41 [p.1105]
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?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-11-20 14:42 [p.1106]
Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question, so let us try again.
Documents from February 22 of this year say, “We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne”. 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?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-11-18 14:21 [p.979]
Mr. Speaker, let us try that again.
On June 5, the Prime Minister said that no one else in his office knew about Nigel Wright's $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy.
On October 24, the Prime Minister told the House that very few people in his office knew about the cheque.
However, there is more. On November 5, just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that Mr. Wright has acknowledged that these were his actions and that he took them himself.
Which of these three statements by the Prime Minister is the correct one?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-28 14:16 [p.467]
Mr. Speaker, the ever-changing stories of the Prime Minister are doing nothing to help his credibility on the Senate scandal, nor is the Prime Minister being clear about his office's actions in the attempted cover-up. This morning, the Prime Minister said he dismissed Nigel Wright after finding out about the $90,000 payoff, but just last Thursday, he told the House that Wright “...to his credit, recognized that decision was totally wrong and he has resigned”.
Which version of the events is true?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-28 14:17 [p.467]
Mr. Speaker, “to his credit“, one cannot just make up this kind of mixed messaging, although I do understand now how the Prime Minister is having trouble keeping the stories straight.
Last week, the Prime Minister said, in the most confused way that he could, that few in his office knew of the Mike Duffy payoff. Could the Prime Minister tell us how many is a few? Is it four? Is it 13? How many is it exactly?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-28 14:18 [p.467]
Mr. Speaker, we actually already know what the RCMP has shared with us. What I was asking was: How many did the Prime Minister know about?
Has the Prime Minister asked his staff to determine who knew about the cheque and, if so, could he share with Canadians exactly how many Conservatives were aware of the attempt to pay off Mike Duffy?
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2013-10-25 11:37 [p.410]
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stated twice during a radio interview that no one in the PMO ever briefed the Prime Minister that others beyond Nigel Wright knew about the Duffy-Wright deal. The PM says he learned of the scandal on May 15 and he has repeatedly claimed he only learned of the cheque on July 5, but RCMP court files released on July 5 revealed his entire senior staff knew what was going on.
Are Canadians really supposed to believe he never asked his staff for all the facts until July 5? Is it normal for a parliamentary secretary to say his boss is incompetent?
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2013-10-25 11:38 [p.410]
Mr. Speaker, the member is not speaking of Hugh Segal or Don Plett, is he?
No one believed the Prime Minister when he said that Nigel Wright was the only person who knew about the cheque to Mike Duffy. No one believes him today when he says that very few people were aware of this deal. His senior staff were more than aware. They devised the plan to cover up the bribe.
When will the Prime Minister commit to testifying under oath?
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2013-10-25 11:39 [p.411]
Mr. Speaker, no one believed the Prime Minister when he said in June that only Nigel Wright knew of the $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy. No one believes him now that he has changed his story to “very few people knew”.
We now know the Prime Minister's entire senior staff not only knew, they devised the plan to cover up the bribe, extortion and corruption.
The Prime Minister refuses to tell the truth to Parliament. When will he commit to testifying under oath so Canadians will finally hear the truth?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-23 14:37 [p.290]
Mr. Speaker, we have heard Mike Duffy's version. If the Prime Minister wants to keep the tiny bit of credibility he still has, he should publicly release all of the documents about this scandal.
When will he do that?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-23 14:38 [p.290]
Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree that he should have told the House how many members of his staff were involved in the Mike Duffy matter when he was asked by the NDP on June 5?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-23 14:38 [p.290]
Mr. Speaker, in exchange for Mike Duffy going along with the PMO clan, did the Prime Minister ever undertake to “publicly confirm you are entitled to sit as a Senator from PEI”?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-23 14:39 [p.290]
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP, the media, Nigel Wright, and Mike Duffy have all reported the same version of the facts.
Their version of the facts contradicts the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary does not know the details of the scandal, but the Prime Minister does.
Did the Prime Minister keep quiet yesterday because he could no longer think of a way to get around the truth and because there was no way out?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-21 14:18 [p.163]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister thinks it was business as usual. Friday we posed straightforward questions and, again, Conservatives refused to provide details about their role in the Senate-PMO expense scandal.
Mike Duffy's lawyer today spoke at length and provided lots of new details. According to him, documents from the PMO outlined how this involved “cash for repayment”.
Could the Prime Minister confirm that his office threatened to kick Mike Duffy out of the Senate if he did not go along with their scheme?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-21 14:19 [p.163]
Mr. Speaker, again, no clear answer.
Mike Duffy's lawyer says that he is in possession of documents that implicate the Prime Minister. Is the PMO really going to wait for Mr. Duffy's lawyer to release this evidence? Why will the Prime Minister's Office not release all documents to the public relating to this matter?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-21 14:20 [p.163]
Mr. Speaker, again, no clear answer.
The lawyer for former Conservative Senator Mike Duffy just said that the Prime Minister's Office coached Mr. Duffy and provided him with lines for dealing with the media over the repayment of his inappropriate expenses. Could the government confirm that this is the case?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-21 14:21 [p.163]
Mr. Speaker, in December 2012, the Prime Minister's chief of staff stated that several senators had arrangements similar to Mike Duffy's.
Will the Prime Minister tell us specifically who these senators are?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-10-21 14:22 [p.163]
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister's Office instruct Mike Duffy not to co-operate with Deloitte in the audit of his expenses? If so, why?
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Scott Brison Profile
2013-10-21 14:53 [p.169]
Mr. Speaker, today we heard that Mike Duffy was told to take the $90,000, keep his mouth shut, and to go along with the cover-up; otherwise, Conservative senators would kick him out of the Senate.
On June 5 the Prime Minister said, “...it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy.... [It was] not communicated to me or to members of my office.”
Now that we know that his senior staff and his Senate leadership crafted this elaborate scheme over a period of weeks, when will the Prime Minister end this cover-up and tell Canadians the truth?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-06-18 14:19 [p.18539]
Mr. Speaker, five days ago the RCMP publicly confirmed that it was looking into the $90,000 cheque that Nigel Wright wrote to Mike Duffy.
Has anyone in the Prime Minister's Office been contacted by the RCMP about this investigation?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-06-13 14:20 [p.18296]
Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question.
The cheque is the centrepiece of this scandal—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-06-13 14:20 [p.18296]
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.
The cheque is the centrepiece of this scandal. It is possible that the money was paid into a trust account. It is also possible that the cheque came with conditions attached. However, the Conservatives say they do not have a copy of the cheque.
We want answers. If Nigel Wright made a mistake and no one noticed, why are the Conservatives taking his word for it?
Why not ask him for a copy of the cheque?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-06-13 14:22 [p.18296]
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Conservatives would take question period seriously.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-06-13 14:22 [p.18296]
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has accepted responsibility, but he never said he had acted alone. Since Nigel Wright seems to have gone behind their backs, how can the Conservatives take him at his word?
The Prime Minister has told the media that he does not want to answer any more questions on this issue. If he wants the questions to stop, why is he not doing everything he can to clear up this matter of the cheque?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2013-06-13 14:23 [p.18296]
Mr. Speaker, speaking of breaking the law, Mary Dawson, the House Ethics Commissioner, has confirmed that she is suspending her investigation into the potentially illegal cheque written by the Prime Minister's adviser, Nigel Wright.
The government has refused to come clean about the nature of this deal, because it claims that both the Senate and the House ethics officers were investigating, but this is no longer the case. Now that we are dealing with a police investigation of the Prime Minister's Office, will they stop hiding? Will they show us the cheque and tell Canadians the terms of the secret deal and who in the Prime Minister's Office was involved in this deal?
Results: 1 - 45 of 45

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data