Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 518
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2015-03-23 14:32 [p.12164]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was found guilty for interfering politically in a project to help friends of the Conservative Party, but she has not really come clean with Canadians, and a lot of questions remain unanswered.
What did happen to that letter from the MP for Thornhill? Was it really lost, or did the Conservatives deep-six it? There are also allegations that the minister interfered in other projects. I will be bringing this issue to the ethics committee.
It is a simple question. Will the Conservatives work with us to get to the bottom of these serious allegations, or will they continue to cover up for the very ethically challenged minister?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who will deliver the second part of my speech.
This is an unprecedented situation in our history. Before I present my arguments in support of our motion, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what happened on October 31.
Since we are talking about something that is rare in the House, unprecedented, I think it is useful to start off the important debate on this issue by citing the various violations of which the member for Peterborough was convicted last Friday.
First off, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of personally paying an election expense, thereby willfully exceeding his contribution limit, contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Just to reference those important subsections, 405(1) says, very clearly:
No individual shall make contributions that exceed
(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year...;
(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates...,
Every person guilty of that offence, knowingly contravening these subsections, is guilty of an offence under sections 481 and 482.
Second, the member for Peterborough and his official agent were found guilty of willfully incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, contrary to subsections 443(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Subsection 443(1) stipulates:
No candidate, official agent of a candidate or person authorized under paragraph 446(c) to enter into contracts shall incur election expenses in an amount that is more than the election expenses limit calculated under section 440.
This is an important part of the Canada Elections Act and is an extremely important violation the member has been found guilty of.
Third, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of providing an electoral campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution, an election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5). Again, 463(1) stipulates very clearly:
No candidate and no official agent of a candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a document referred to in subsection 451(1) or 455(1) that (a) the candidate or the official agent, as the case may be, knows or ought reasonably to know contains a material statement that is false or misleading;...
Finally, the member for Peterborough has been found guilty of providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(b) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).
Among the convictions on three counts, the final count was stayed, at the crown's request, following the finding of guilt.
Each of the three counts of which the member for Peterborough was found guilty carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, one year in prison, or both.
This is not a little event in the life of the House of Commons. There is a serious criminal conviction, in three cases, under the Canada Elections Act. The judge stated that the evidence provided by the member for Peterborough was incredible and full of inconsistencies and improbabilities and that the member for Peterborough frequently obfuscated.
Justice Lisa Cameron was very clear in terms of the guilty verdict she rendered on three counts for the member for Peterborough. What was the response from the member for Peterborough? I heard it myself on the radio. The member for Peterborough said that it was just her opinion.
This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of the law of the land not being respected by the member for Peterborough. The House is now seized with this question and has to make a decision about what comes next. There is no doubt that this is a serious violation of the Canada Elections Act, and it should be treated seriously.
Yesterday we had, from the government, its initial response on how it is going to respond to the important issue of convictions on three counts of violating the Canada Elections Act. I am certainly not going to reproach the government House leader for being very clear on where the government wants to go, but I think it is important to note that the government said very clearly that it wanted to do nothing. The Conservatives want to tuck it under a carpet and refer the whole matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.
On this side of the House, we believe that the serious violations of which this member has been convicted require serious measures. That is why we are putting forward a motion today that says very clearly, given the serious violations of the Canada Elections Act, that this House should immediately suspend the member.
That is our approach. The government has seemingly not wanted to take this approach. Seemingly, the government has said, no, it just wants to tuck it over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We disagree profoundly with that approach. We believe that these serious violations demand a serious response from this House of Commons.
Given the current government's track record, it is not surprising that the Conservatives would want to, in effect, by putting it over to the procedure and House affairs committee, try to sweep this under the carpet. However, when we couple this with what we have seen as a systematic pattern of behaviour by the Conservative government, members can begin to understand why we are concerned that the government's approach is to tuck this away in a committee rather than deal with a very serious series of violations and a guilty verdict that is very clear on three counts. Rather than tucking it under the carpet, we believe that serious measures are required.
On the Conservative government's history, when we look at the last three federal elections, I think, to a certain extent, there is diminished public trust in how the government approaches violations of the Canada Elections Act.
In 2006, the first election in which the current Conservative government was elected, we had the in-and-out scandal. What we saw following that were a number of Conservative Party operatives found guilty of breaking Elections Canada rules. They had to pay more than $52,000 in fines. Taxpayers spent more than $2.3 million for the investigation, which led to a five-year legal battle.
For the 2008 election campaign, we have the conviction we have just seen. The member for Peterborough has been convicted on three counts.
In 2011, we saw the robocall scandal. A former Conservative staffer has been found guilty. We have also seen the former member of Parliament, the former minister from Labrador, very clearly overspending and seeing that the Canada Elections Act did not apply.
There has been a systematic pattern of breaking the Canada Elections Act.
The Canada Elections Act is a fundamental Canadian value. It sets a level playing field for all candidates. It sets the rules for our democracy. Given these systematic violations we have seen over the course of the last few years, we say that on this case now coming before the House, it is important for the House of Commons to say that it is a serious violation. These three counts are serious in nature, and as a result, the House of Commons should be moving to immediately suspend the member from the right to sit or vote in this place, the right to sit on any committee in this place, and the right to collect his sessional allowance.
I have two final points I would like to make.
First, the procedure and House affairs committee is now nine months behind on its consideration of Motion No. 428.
Second, as we saw today, and as the leader of the official opposition mentioned, on Bill C-518, what we have seen is the government moving to extract from the Canada Elections Act a series of violations that would lead to the end of the sessional allowance. We do not stand for that on this side of the House, and the member for Toronto—Danforth will comment further.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2014-05-28 15:01 [p.5744]
Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly evident that the Minister of Justice in his current and previous portfolios has left a trail of incompetence wherever he goes, including the disastrous F-35 procurement, using a search-and-rescue helicopter to winch himself out of a fishing camp, the botched appointment of Justice Nadon, and the smear job on the Chief Justice, but taking the cake is his hand-picked choice of his friend to lead ECBC, now fired for hiring the minister's lackeys without competition.
I ask the Prime Minister this: whatever happened to ministerial accountability in the government?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
View Rob Moore Profile
2014-05-28 15:02 [p.5744]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a former minister. He should know that ministers are not involved in the day-to-day hiring of staff, yet the members ask each day for us to engage in that.
This is the same member who was asked to repay expenses on the house he claimed was his own which was not his own. I assume it was a glass house. He had to repay the money a couple of years ago. We take no lessons on accountability from that member.
View Chris Charlton Profile
NDP (ON)
View Chris Charlton Profile
2014-04-02 14:19 [p.4172]
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Prime Minister's Office leaked that it was demanding an investigation into the behaviour of the member for Mississauga—Brampton South. After being unaware last week when the NDP first raised this issue, now the Prime Minister is aware of these serious allegations being levelled by party members.
Canadians are left wondering. Why is the Prime Minister demanding this investigation but sees no need at all to investigate Senator Irving Gerstein's use of Conservative Party funds to pay off Mike Duffy? While the Prime Minister has ordered an inquiry into this misuse of the Conservative Party's infamous database, he has never once demanded an investigation into the misuse of the very same database for deceptive voter suppression calls during the last election.
I am sure that Conservative members are happy to see an investigation into the trampling of their democratic rights, but when will Conservatives finally come clean about trampling on the democratic rights of all Canadians?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2014-01-29 14:36 [p.2283]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was the Minister of the Environment who was caught out at another questionable Conservative fundraiser. The minister must have known that there was something not quite ethically right about this event when she snuck in via the back door, but perhaps she hoped that sneaking in through the back door would mean that no one noticed she was breaking the same ethical rule her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, did just last week.
When is the Prime Minister finally going to put an end to this unethical behaviour, and what sanctions will this minister face?
View Leona Aglukkaq Profile
CPC (NU)
View Leona Aglukkaq Profile
2014-01-29 14:37 [p.2283]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank that member for the question so that I can correct that inaccurate news story and that inaccurate question.
There was an event for a local riding. It was never advertised as anything more and was fully consistent with the guidelines that are in place. The local riding association has taken great care, before and after the event, to follow those guidelines, and only appropriate donations were accepted.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2014-01-29 14:37 [p.2283]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment used the same playbook as the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who got tripped up for it. Just this month alone, we have the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of the Environment, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, and Chuck Strahl, the Enbridge lobbyist. It is like they take their ethics lessons from the Conservative Senate.
When it comes to the bar of accountability, the Conservatives are over there every day doing the ethical limbo. How low will they go before the Prime Minister finally sets some rules for them?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2014-01-29 14:38 [p.2283]
Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister and this government have always had the highest ethical standards. That has been the norm since this Prime Minister was elected the leader of our party.
When it comes to ethics, this is a gentleman who really has nerve getting up and asking those questions. When we look at the donations that he has accepted into his EDA, he seems to have gone after the very same people who are lobbying him with respect to his file.
That does not show the same type of standard the member is advocating here. At the same time, we know he has broken Elections Canada rules with respect to how his last campaign went. He also sends out press releases saying how great a job we are doing, but he votes against it.
View Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, let me recap.
The Minister of the Environment attended a fundraiser where guests included people who receive funding directly from her department. The Minister of Canadian Heritage did more or less the same thing last week. Yesterday, the Minister of Veterans Affairs had nothing better to do than insult and run roughshod over veterans.
How does the Prime Minister determine when a minister should be asked to resign? What is the ethical standard of the day?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2014-01-29 14:39 [p.2283]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always demanded the highest ethical standards from his caucus and staffers.
That is the example, of course, that this Prime Minister has set since the first day he was elected the leader of our party. Contrast that to the opposition that accepted illegal contributions from their big boss union friends. Members opposite accept donations from individuals who are lobbying them to make changes on policy.
When it comes to accountability, we have taken action. We have shown leadership. That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are delivering.
View Scott Andrews Profile
Ind. (NL)
View Scott Andrews Profile
2014-01-29 14:57 [p.2286]
Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Act is clear. The ministerial handbook is crystal clear: ministers cannot fundraise using people who get money from the department. However, the Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency sent out an email inviting stakeholders to a fundraiser featuring Nellie Cournoyea, head of a group the minister gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to in grants. The minister's office only started handing out free tickets yesterday afternoon when the media started sniffing around.
Why will the Prime Minister not enforce his own ethical rules and stop this illegal fundraising?
View Leona Aglukkaq Profile
CPC (NU)
View Leona Aglukkaq Profile
2014-01-29 14:57 [p.2287]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member again for raising this question so that I can correct the inaccurate news story. This was an event for a local riding. It was never advertised as anything more, and was fully consistent with the guidelines that are in place.
The local riding association took great care both before and after the event to follow those guidelines, and only appropriate donations were accepted.
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2014-01-28 14:27 [p.2239]
Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 2013, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, wrote that the Prime Minister was well aware that he was personally assisting Mike Duffy with the reimbursement of his expenses.
Is what Nigel Wright put in writing true or false?
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2014-01-28 14:28 [p.2239]
Mr. Speaker, the question was about what his chief of staff Nigel Wright wrote on May 14, and I am asking the Prime Minister the question. He wrote that “the Prime Minister knows...I personally assisted Duffy..”.
Is the Prime Minister now saying that Nigel Wright was lying when he wrote that?
View Stephen Harper Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has already been clear that I had no knowledge of this, as I said. We will obviously leave that investigation to the RCMP; they are responsible.
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2014-01-28 14:28 [p.2240]
Mr. Speaker, on page 20 of the RCMP's documents, Nigel Wright told the police that he had informed the Prime Minister of the plan to make an agreement with Mike Duffy.
Is the Prime Minister saying that Nigel Wright lied to the RCMP about this?
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2014-01-28 14:29 [p.2240]
Mr. Speaker, six days after the deal with Duffy was made, six days after the Prime Minister gave the famous good to go, he stood up in this House and proceeded to deliver on his part of the deal. He read the very script that had been agreed to and said Duffy met the residency requirements to sit in the Senate.
Does the Prime Minister not understand that by his actions he is confirming that he knew about the deal?
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
View Ève Péclet Profile
2013-12-10 14:28 [p.2014]
Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Senate. The Prime Minister said in the House, more than once, that Nigel Wright was the only one involved in the secret repayment agreement. We know that is not true. We also know that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary opposed the NDP motion to shed light on Perrin's deleted emails.
Why? Did he know that these emails prove that the Prime Minister misled the House?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:29 [p.2014]
Mr. Speaker, that is just a bunch of rubbish.
The committee made no decision. They are still debating this right now. The committee made the decision to go in camera when the NDP chair seemed to lose control, because the NDP members seemed to find it more interesting to point-of-order themselves than to actually deal with the motion that was on the table.
It was amazing how much debate got done once the cameras were off, and the committee will make its own decision with respect to that going forward.
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
View Ève Péclet Profile
2013-12-10 14:29 [p.2014]
Mr. Speaker, that is the art of not answering a question.
The parliamentary secretary can try to deflect responsibility away from the Prime Minister, but he is the one who told the House, verbatim, that Benjamin Perrin was not involved in a legal agreement. Now that his office and the police are in possession of the emails that magically reappeared, can a government member tell us what role Benjamin Perrin really played in this scandal?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:30 [p.2014]
Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, as soon as the Privy Council found out that these emails were available, it made them available to the RCMP. That, of course, is the kind of leadership that one would expect. It is the type of leadership that this Prime Minister has displayed. When he found out in May that this had actually been taking place in his office, he ordered his office to fully assist the RCMP.
I contrast that to the Leader of the Opposition, who for 17 years thought that hiding something was the appropriate course of action. Clearly, there is a lack of it.
View Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we are wondering what is really in those emails. Do the Conservatives feel so threatened that they are trying to prevent an investigation into the mysterious temporary disappearance of the emails, which reappeared not so long ago? When will the government finally make public the content of the Prime Minister's former legal adviser's emails? When?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:31 [p.2014]
Mr. Speaker, the committee is still considering the motion that was brought forward.
However, as I have said, as soon as the Privy Council Office found out that these emails had been put into a separate file that had been sequestered, it immediately made them available to the RCMP to review.
View Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to have a minister respond? After all, this scandal is due to an administrative error on the part of the government. Could a minister confirm whether Benjamin Perrin's emails contain information that incriminates the Prime Minister? Could any information incriminate the Prime Minister, yes or no?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:32 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, our ministers have been working extraordinarily hard, not only on this but on all kinds of different files. That is why one million net new jobs have been created in this country. That is why the Minister of National Defence is busy ensuring that our forces have the equipment they need. That is why the Minister of Justice brought forward a victims' bill of rights. That is why the Minister of State for sport is undertaking the Pan Am Games. That is why the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is ensuring that our forces have the equipment they need. That is why the Minister of Natural Resources is making our resources available. That is why the Minister of International Trade is working on a free trade deal. I could go on and on.
View Chris Charlton Profile
NDP (ON)
View Chris Charlton Profile
2013-12-10 14:33 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, once the Prime Minister claimed Ben Perrin was not involved in the legal agreement, but the RCMP proved that wrong.
The Prime Minister then claimed that no one except Nigel Wright knew about the deal, but RCMP documents proved that wrong too.
Is there any other information about this cover-up that the Conservative government would like to share with Canadians before the RCMP releases more details?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:33 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP indicated that the Prime Minister, as soon as he found out, ordered his office to assist the RCMP so that it had all the information it needed to uncover what had happened.
The Prime Minister also said that had he known, he would have in no way accepted such an agreement.
Again, I contrast that to the Leader of the Opposition who, when given the opportunity 17 years ago to admit that he had been offered a bribe, decided to tell nobody. He waited until 2011 to tell anybody that he had been offered a bribe.
That is not really the type of leadership Canadians expect. That is why he is in opposition.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2013-12-10 14:34 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, this politically wounded Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary are having a hard time keeping the lid on.
This morning at the ethics committee, the parliamentary secretary forced out the media from hearing a motion on studying Ben Perrin's mysteriously disappearing emails, emails that were hidden from the RCMP for six months.
If everything is on the up-and-up, why cover up such shambolic handling of police evidence? If there is nothing to hide, why not just allow the investigation?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:34 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the committee is obviously still reviewing this motion, but the NDP chair seemed to be losing control when NDP members started point-of-ordering themselves in committee. That did not seem to be an effective use of the committee's time. There were three other motions that we had to discuss at the same time.
What is clear is that the RCMP has stated that the Prime Minister insisted that his office assist it and provide all the information that is needed. That is real leadership. Also, on page 72, the documents clearly outline that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of what was going on. As the Prime Minister said, had he known, he would have put a stop to it.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2013-12-10 14:35 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, speaking of shambolic and all.
Here is another question from the RCMP files. We have seen from the RCMP that the Prime Minister's Office was panicking that the Duffy residency issues were going to expose other senators. In fact, on February 15, Nigel Wright wrote that he was concerned that Mike Duffy's residency problems would expose Senator Patterson in B.C.
Why would the Prime Minister's Office refer to a senator from Nunavut as a senator from British Columbia? Does the government believe that Senator Patterson actually meets the legal requirements to sit in the Senate?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:36 [p.2015]
Mr. Speaker, clearly he does, but at the same time let us recognize the hard work of that senator for his region of the country. Senator Patterson, a former premier of the Northwest Territories, has also been very active and aggressive in making sure that the people of the Northwest Territories have access to better jobs and that their resources are used to improve the economy of the Northwest Territories. Of course, this government has taken the north very seriously, unlike the opposition.
Of course, we are even defending the north further by making a claim on the North Pole. We know that the Liberals do not think that the North Pole or Santa Claus is in Canada. We do. We are going to make sure that we protect them as best we can.
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Speaker, for eight months Canadians have been demanding answers about the Wright-Duffy affair. How did the PMO know in advance what would be in the Deloitte audit? Why did no one in the PMO tell the RCMP about the two illegal payoff schemes? Why do the staffers involved still hold on to their government jobs?
Would someone on the government side give Canadians an early Christmas present and answer even one of these questions?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:37 [p.2016]
Mr. Speaker, of course we know what time of year it is when we get silly questions like that.
The reality is that the RCMP is investigating this matter. The RCMP has identified that it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are the subjects of the investigation. The RCMP has identified that the Prime Minister did not know what was being undertaken. The RCMP has also highlighted the fact that the Prime Minister ordered his office to work with and assist the RCMP, providing as much help as it could to help the RCMP get to the bottom of this. The RCMP is investigating, and we will let it do its job.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-12-10 14:38 [p.2016]
Mr. Speaker, let us look at other questions that the Prime Minister has refused to answer in the past eight months.
Did the Prime Minister know about Irving Gerstein's decision to pay Mike Duffy $32,000?
Did he know that Irving Gerstein secretly contacted one of his Conservative friends at Deloitte?
Did he order his ministers to hire his former employees who were involved in this affair?
Will this government give Canadians a Christmas present today and answer at least one of these questions?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:38 [p.2016]
Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein has made it quite clear that he did not and was not going to be paying back Senator Duffy's expenses. The Prime Minister has already identified that.
With respect to giving Canadians a gift, it is hard to take that party seriously when the person who we most look to this year to give gifts, including my daughters, is Santa Claus. All of a sudden the Liberals are suggesting that Santa Claus is no longer Canadian and that they would abandon the North Pole and abandon Santa Claus. On this side of the House, we are going to stand up not only for my daughters, but for your family as well, Mr. Speaker, and for all those young Canadians, in the spirit of Christmas, who are waiting for Santa Claus to come and visit.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
View Ralph Goodale Profile
2013-12-10 14:39 [p.2016]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims his ethics scandal is confined to just two miscreants: Duffy, the greedy senator, whom the Prime Minister once called his best appointment, and Wright, the great deceiver, whose ethical advice the Prime Minister praised in his book on hockey.
However, there are more: van Hemmen, Rogers, Woodcock, Byrne, Hilton, Novak, Perrin, Hamilton, Gerstein, LeBreton, Tkachuk, and Stewart Olsen, all named by police in relation to the cover-up.
Which of these people have now been interviewed by the Mounties, not just once but twice? Which ones?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 14:40 [p.2016]
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP are currently undertaking an investigation.
The RCMP, I am sure, will ask anybody they feel they need to ask with respect to this. They have identified that Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy are the subject of the investigation. I trust that the RCMP will continue to do the work they need to do to find whatever information they need.
At the same time, I ask the Liberal Party to join with us in protecting the citizenship of Santa Claus, join with us in making sure the North Pole remains part of Canada. For all of those kids around the world who are depending on Santa Claus, I ask them to abandon their ideas and stick with us, and keep Santa Claus Canadian.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2013-12-10 15:07 [p.2021]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which relates to the ability of the Speaker to provide guidance as to the quality of answers. I know this is not a power of the Speakers that has been used in recent years. However, I do believe the power exists.
When a question was asked that did not pertain to the Arctic or the north and the response was that Santa Claus is a Canadian citizen, I think that is far off point.
I am also advised by Santa Claus that there will be a lump of coal in the member's stocking.
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-10 15:07 [p.2021]
Mr. Speaker, I will just say this. I am now shocked to learn that the Green Party itself no longer believes that the north is an important part of Canada.
I will of course do my best to stand up for Santa Claus each and every day in this House, that includes in question period. He is a Canadian citizen, and we will defend him all the way to the United Nations when we make our claim for the North Pole. I am proud of that.
View Chris Charlton Profile
NDP (ON)
View Chris Charlton Profile
2013-12-06 11:31 [p.1870]
Mr. Speaker, talking about hot air, we got absolutely no answer on why the PM's chief of staff was worried about whether Senator Patterson was actually qualified to sit in the Senate.
The Prime Minister said he learned of the Conservative Party's cheque to pay Mike Duffy's legal expenses on May 15. Then, for 167 days the Prime Minister failed to mention this, until Mike Duffy spoke to the Senate. Why did the Prime Minister not tell Canadians about that second cheque for almost six months?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-06 11:31 [p.1870]
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, the party does assist members of caucus with their legal fees. That is not something that is abnormal. That is something that the NDP does. Of course, we understand that the Leader of the Opposition himself took thousands of dollars from his own political party to cover his legal fees. In fact, once the Leader of the Opposition was found guilty, in order to pay thousands of dollars he actually asked his party to pay for that as well.
View Chris Charlton Profile
NDP (ON)
View Chris Charlton Profile
2013-12-06 11:32 [p.1870]
Mr. Speaker, it is a record-breaking day for the hot air that the member was talking about a little while ago.
What we are interested in is what the Prime Minister knew after May 15 but hid from Canadians. He must have discovered from his staff that his lawyer, Ben Perrin, and his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had arranged a second cheque as part of their $90,000 cover-up.
The Prime Minister must have learned about the legal arrangement in May, so why did he keep telling the House that there was no legal agreement for months on end?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-06 11:32 [p.1870]
Mr. Speaker, the member asked about what the Prime Minister knew. As the Prime Minister has said, as soon as he found out on May 15, he made this public.
However, he went even further. As is stated on page 20 of the RCMP documents, it is quite clear:
Rob Staley, legal representative for the PMO, advised my office [the RCMP] that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation that the RCMP requested.
That is the real type of leadership that this Prime Minister shows day in and day out. Full co-operation and full assistance are what Canadians expect, and that is what this Prime Minister delivered.
View Chris Charlton Profile
NDP (ON)
View Chris Charlton Profile
2013-12-06 11:33 [p.1871]
Mr. Speaker, this week ends like so many others, with Conservatives blaming everyone else and taking no responsibility for their actions.
One day the Prime Minister blamed “the bureaucracy”, which really is his own department, for Ben Perrin's missing emails; the next he blamed Ben Perrin for destroying them.
Does the Prime Minister expect us to believe that Ben Perrin could have been able to permanently erase all of his emails simply by hitting the delete button?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-06 11:34 [p.1871]
Mr. Speaker, it was the assistant secretary to the cabinet who informed the Prime Minister's Office that they had actually preserved those emails. They had been preserved in another file for different litigation that was ongoing. At the same time, the assistant clerk of the Privy Council did apologize to the Prime Minister's Office and informed the RCMP that these emails would be made available.
View Laurin Liu Profile
NDP (QC)
View Laurin Liu Profile
2013-12-06 11:34 [p.1871]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Benjamin Perrin was not involved in a legal agreement, but the RCMP documents show that that is not true.
The Prime Minister said that only Nigel Wright was aware of the agreement, but the documents show that that is not true.
How many times does the RCMP have to contradict the Prime Minister before he starts telling the truth?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2013-12-06 11:35 [p.1871]
Mr. Speaker, again, the exact same documents that the member refers to clearly indicate it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are the subjects of this investigation. Page 72, of course, goes on further to say that the RCMP have absolutely no evidence that the Prime Minister knew of this plan.
At the same time, as the Prime Minister has said, had he known that this plan was being undertaken, he would have put an immediate stop to it.
View Anne Minh-Thu Quach Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, our dear Prime Minister should have written a fantasy story instead of a book on hockey. The Prime Minister's fantastical imagination would be amazing were it not used for such harmful purposes.
There was the story of Nigel Wright, the only one who knew about the scheme, right up to the day that the RCMP implicated more than a dozen people from the Prime Minister's inner circle. There was the story of the missing legal agreement between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright, right up to the day that the RCMP proved that that was yet another fabrication. There was also the story of the independence of the Senate, right up to the day that one of the speakers of the Senate decided to “slip away”. There was the story of Mike Duffy's residency supposedly being okay, right up to the day that Mr. Duffy himself did not even know where he lived. There was the story of the innocence of Benjamin Perrin, right up until his fingerprints were found all over the police documents. Lastly, there was the story of Irving Gerstein not being involved, right up until we learned the truth about this manipulative schemer.
When will this book of the Conservatives' greatest scandals be released?
View Stephen Harper Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. As the RCMP said in its recent court filings, the Prime Minister's Office has not only provided full assistance and co-operation but has also provided all and any documentation that the RCMP has required.
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2013-12-05 14:29 [p.1822]
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister know about the original plan to pay off Mike Duffy's expenses using money from the Conservative Party, yes or no?
View Stephen Harper Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, it was always conveyed to me that Mr. Duffy would repay his own expenses. Not only is that what I was told; Mr. Duffy himself said publicly that he had done that. The fact of the matter, of course, is that was not true. Mr. Duffy had received money from somebody else who had effectively done that for him, and that was not properly disclosed and was misrepresented. For that reason, we have taken the appropriate actions.
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2013-12-05 14:29 [p.1822]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's spokesman has given a clear answer to that question. It is just different.
Why is the Prime Minister afraid to give a straight answer? Why is his spokesman allowed to give straight answers? Is it because his spokesman is allowed to lie and the Prime Minister is not?
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2013-12-05 14:31 [p.1822]
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister know about the original plan to have the Conservative Party pay Mike Duffy's expenses, yes or no?
View Stephen Harper Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, of course I have answered that question on many occasions. It was always conveyed to me that it was Mr. Duffy who was going to pay Mr. Duffy's expenses, not the Conservative Party, not Nigel Wright, not anybody else.
We have been crystal clear on that. The Leader of the Opposition knows what the answer is to that question. He knows what the truth is. It is he who is determined to ignore the truth.
Results: 1 - 60 of 518 | Page: 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data