Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 30
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-09-28 14:39 [p.5205]
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are obviously pleased to see me back.
My friend knows very well that Brookfield has apologized for that erroneous information. What my friend should also consider is the advice of Guy Giorno, somebody whose orders he followed so faithfully for so long.
We would draw to the House's attention, the former chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper who said:
The federal relocation program—which applies to hundreds of moves annually, including moves by employees of government, military and RCMP—exists for a very good reason. The purpose is to ensure that those who relocate because of federal employment are made whole financially.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-09-28 14:42 [p.5206]
Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague opposite is on a fishing expedition. Allow me to respond.
He knows full well that Brookfield apologized for providing erroneous information. He may not have heard the response we gave his predecessor. He may have had to change the question. We know how faithfully our friends across the way followed the orders of Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Guy Giorno.
We are inspired by his encouraging words about this program, but we are going to improve it and that is why the Prime Minister instructed the President of the Treasury Board to review the program.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-06-01 14:50 [p.3880]
Mr. Speaker, I will explain exactly how we will justify that important visit. It is because of what was accomplished for Canadians. On that trip, a historic visit, significant progress was made on issues as important to Canadians as climate change, the environment, international security, defence co-operation, the global coalition against ISIL, trade, and transborder security. We are proud of that trip, we are proud of what was accomplished, and all of the costs, as the member well knows, were proactively disclosed by a government that is committed to openness and transparency.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2016-06-01 14:52 [p.3880]
Mr. Speaker, I realize that my colleague opposite may not be used to an appropriate Canadian delegation for a state visit to the United States. Our Prime Minister's visit marked the first time that the United States had bestowed this honour on Canada since 1997. As I have repeatedly stated, all appropriate expenses were proactively disclosed as promised by our government.
What matters just as much to us is the progress made on files and issues that are important to Canadians. We are proud of this visit.
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 Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-12-03 14:24 [p.1689]
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that the Prime Minister knew nothing about the repayment to Mike Duffy. It is hard to believe that a dozen of his confidantes were aware of it but told him nothing. The hardest thing to believe is that he had access to Benjamin Perrin's emails for six months, but that the officials were the ones who did not realize how important those emails were.
If that is the case, who had the emails, and how was it possible not to know of their existence when the RCMP requested the information?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-12-02 14:25 [p.1606]
Mr. Speaker, for months, the Prime Minister told us that the emails from his own lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, had been deleted. We now know that was not true.
We already know his staff had no ethical difficulty in attempting to pay off a senator or whitewash a Senate report, so considering the lack of trust that Canadians have in the Prime Minister and his office, can the Prime Minister assure Canadians that no member of his staff had access to these emails from Mr. Perrin and were able to delete, doctor, alter, or whitewash Mr. Perrin's emails as well?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-12-02 14:26 [p.1606]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us that he did not have Benjamin Perrin's emails, when the opposite was true. He waited six months to finally tell the truth.
Benjamin Perrin was involved in the Mike Duffy deal, and the PMO tried to cover up the illegal repayments.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that no one in his office had access to those emails and that no one was able to doctor them or remove them from the Privy Council Office?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-26 10:11 [p.1352]
moved:
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, and remind the Prime Minister of his own Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, which 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,” and the House call upon the Prime Minister to explain in detail to Canadians, under oath, what Nigel Wright or any other member of his staff or any other Conservative told him at any time about any aspect of any possible arrangement pertaining to Mike Duffy, what he did about it, and when.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to thank my colleague from Cardigan for seconding this important motion.
Today there are basically two issues we hope Canadians will reflect on in this House and pronounce on later this evening.
The first is the role of the Prime Minister's Office, the senior advisers to the Prime Minister, in a potentially criminal cover-up and a series of events, which the RCMP believes, in fact, have violated three sections of the Criminal Code.
The second issue is the role of senior Conservative operatives and senior Conservative senators in participating in a whitewash of a Senate report in attempting to influence an independent audit being conducted by a national auditing firm.
We think Canadians, increasingly, do not believe the Prime Minister and do not believe his constantly changing version of these events. That is why we think it is important to have this discussion in the House of Commons today. I hope that colleagues will agree with us tonight, in a vote, that the only solution is for the Prime Minister to, in fact, come clean, under oath, and explain to Canadians the exact extent to which he was informed of many of these details.
The real problem here, apart from the fact that the RCMP believes that criminal activity took place in the Prime Minister's Office, is that not only are there multiple versions of the facts in terms of the degree of the Prime Minister's involvement, but the versions put forward by the RCMP and by this government demonstrate that the Prime Minister and his staff acted inappropriately.
It has become clear that Canadians no longer believe the Prime Minister when he tells his changing version of this sordid affair. In fact, the person who is undermining the Prime Minister's credibility the most is the Prime Minister himself, because he has given us so many different versions. His story keeps changing. Every time, new details are made public. We are at the point where people are doubting what the Prime Minister of Canada is saying.
On the one side, we have email correspondence from Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, highlighted in a sworn affidavit from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and presented to a judge. Let us look at the first email.
On February 22, Nigel Wright states that Mike Duffy would be made whole through the use of Conservative Party money, but at the end, Nigel Wright wanted to “speak to the PM before everything is considered final. Less than an hour later, according to an RCMP sworn affidavit, Nigel Wright sent a further email saying, “We are good to go from the PM”.
The inference here is very clear: Nigel Wright confirmed the details of the agreement to pay back Mike Duffy with the Prime Minister.
I would very much like to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt when he claims that Nigel Wright did not tell him the details of the agreement. However, Nigel Wright has been very clear. At that time, the agreement was in fact to use Conservative Party funds to pay back Mike Duffy's inappropriate expense claims.
It is ridiculous to suggest that Mr. Wright needed the Prime Minister's approval to ask Mike Duffy to pay back his fraudulent expense claims with his own money. Quire frankly, this story borders on the ridiculous.
The determining factor in an illegal act such as the ones the RCMP believes took place in the Prime Minister's Office is not only who gave the corrupt money and when but that such a transfer ultimately took place. The Prime Minister's problem here is that all indications, all the circumstantial evidence, point to his knowing and approving of at least a $32,000 payment to Senator Duffy, plus his legal fees. These funds were originally going to come from the Conservative Party through the hands of Senator Irving Gerstein, who was a senior Conservative member of the caucus and chairman of the Conservative fund.
It does not matter, in the end, that the source of funds changed and that the amount increased. The Prime Minister appears to have approved a plan to corrupt a sitting legislator, and that is the essential element of how this whole sordid affair began. That allegation has met with no credible defence from the government spokespersons, and the RCMP, in its sworn affidavit, tells a very compelling story to Canadians.
Indeed, the RCMP affidavit paints a clear and compelling story of a widespread and directed cover-up at the senior levels of the Prime Minister's Office, including senior members of the Conservative caucus in the Senate and a woman who, at the time, was a senior Conservative cabinet minister. The RCMP believes that in the totality of the evidence, these actions and the subsequent attempt to cover up these actions constituted a violation of at least three sections of Canada's Criminal Code.
Even if we believe the Prime Minister when he says that Nigel Wright told him nothing and that he was never informed of the Mike Duffy repayment scheme; of the whitewashing of the Senate report, which was ordered by his own office; or of the involvement of four senators in his inner circle—even if we decide to believe all of the excuses, each more ridiculous than the last—there is still a serious problem. This government chose to protect the individuals who were involved in this possibly criminal scheme instead of adequately disciplining them.
I want to share a few of the most blatant examples. Some of these people are still Conservative senators and others were directly employed by the Prime Minister of Canada before being promoted to the highest echelons of Conservative ministerial offices.
Let us start with the Conservative senators. Four of them, senators LeBreton, Carolyn Stewart Olsen, David Tkachuk and Irving Gerstein, were interviewed by the RCMP in regard to their role in the Conservative scheme to whitewash a Senate report that was supposed to be, originally, critical of Senator Duffy's behaviour.
Indeed the RCMP have found, in sworn affidavits, that these Conservative senators were less than truthful when they were interviewed by Canada's national police force. Senator Marjory LeBreton was a senior member of the Conservative cabinet in the current Prime Minister's government. She was a key architect in the government plan to whitewash the Senate audit and participated actively and directly in an effort to sweep the whole mess under the carpet.
She presided over an effort in the Senate to potentially hide criminal acts, and for that she has been rewarded by remaining on the internal economy committee of the Senate.
Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen really did the heavy lifting in the effort to whitewash the Senate report. She in fact moved to strip sections out of the draft report that were critical of Senator Duffy's spending. She was an architect of the deal to go easy on Senator Duffy, as was negotiated between the Prime Minister's lawyer, Mr. Perrin, and Mr. Duffy's counsel, Ms. Payne. She was found, herself, to have been less than truthful in her discussions, in her interview with the RCMP.
For a government that pretends over and over again that it is co-operating fully with the RCMP in this investigation, maybe it should start by suggesting to the senior members of its caucus, as well as Senator Stewart Olsen, the Prime Minister's former press secretary, that they in fact be truthful when they are interviewed by the RCMP.
Some will remember Senator David Tkachuk as having been involved in the scandal concerning spending in the Saskatchewan legislature. Senator Tkachuk played another critical role. He was chair of the internal economy committee. He subsequently resigned. Canadians will remember that Senator Tkachuk was briefed by Deloitte in a verbal presentation on the progress of its audit.
It was a private meeting. Three senators were present. The auditors came to give a preliminary report on their findings. Deloitte had found that Senator Duffy was claiming per diem allocations from taxpayers in Ottawa at a time when his cellphone records indicated he was in Florida, and what did Senator Tkachuk do? He picked up the phone and called Senator Duffy and told him he had better come up with some explanation as to why he was claiming per diems in Ottawa when in fact he was in Florida.
Ever compliant, their favourite senator, Senator Duffy then sent a phony letter to Senator Tkachuk referring to a conversation they had two evenings previously and saying he had reviewed his records and in fact there was a clerical error in his office as to why taxpayers were paying per diems for his work in Ottawa when he was in Florida.
Senator Tkachuk had an obligation to taxpayers to protect taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, not to call a colleague who is under investigation in a forensic audit and tip him off. That would be like a judge who meets with the police before granting a search warrant, and the minute the police leave his or her office, the judge picks up the phone and says to the target of the search warrant: “Look you'd better get rid of the evidence, because the police are on their way over”. That makes no sense at all. That was what Senator Tkachuk did, and he too has been rewarded for his good work by continuing to serve on the internal economy committee of the senate.
Canadians will know Senator Irving Gerstein as a senior Conservative fundraiser, the chair of the Conservative fund. Surprisingly, he felt it appropriate to pick up the phone, on instructions from the Prime Minister's Office as we have learned from the RCMP affidavit, and call Deloitte, a reputable national auditing firm, to try to put pressure on it to say that if Mike Duffy reimbursed the money they could just sort of call it kiff and forget about Senator Duffy and the audit. He asked how that might work.
Senator Gerstein is not a member of that committee. He was not involved in the audit function in the Senate at all, but presumably he has a relationship with senior officials at the accounting firm. It might be because it has done $50 million worth of work for the Government of Canada in recent years; that could be. I see my colleague, the NDP House leader, may agree with me that it might in fact be one of the reasons Senator Gerstein felt it was appropriate to just pick up the phone and say, “Look, can we just forget about this?”
That constitutes a huge breach of professional ethics on the part of Senator Gerstein. It is inexplicable why the Prime Minister's Office would instruct people to contact an independent audit firm. I am very pleased that the Senate internal economy committee, inspired by an intervention from the Liberal Party, will in fact be calling Deloitte before the Senate committee later this week to explain exactly how and by whom they were contacted, when senior Conservative operators called attempting to whitewash an audit.
Senator Gerstein was also willing to pay $32,000 to reimburse Mike Duffy for his potentially fraudulent expenses. As we know from the RCMP audit, Senator Gerstein certainly did not worry about the propriety of potentially trying to corrupt and bribe a sitting legislator. His concern was with the quantum. His concern was with the amount of money involved, and he was willing to take $32,000 of contributions that Canadians made of their personal money to the Conservative Party and flush it to Mike Duffy to try to make a problem go away for the Prime Minister and for Mr. Wright, but at the end he decided that the amount was too much; and then Nigel Wright entered with a bag of money.
Now let us take a look at the steps taken by the Prime Minister's employees, those who played some sort of role in this sordid affair and who still work for the Conservative Party and the Canadian government, namely Chris Woodcock, David van Hemmen, Patrick Rogers and Ray Novak. I want to look at what they knew, when they knew it, and what the Prime Minister did for his own employees who were responsible for this scheme.
I will start with Mr. Woodcock. He was director of issues management in the PMO. In other words, if there was a fire, it was up to Chris Woodcock to put it out. RCMP documents show that he participated in whitewashing the Senate report and, what is worse, Nigel Wright sent him an email on March 8 to inform him that Mike Duffy would be receiving a $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright's personal bank account.
Rather than informing the police or perhaps even calling a lawyer, what did he do? Clearly, he could not call the Prime Minister's lawyer in the Prime Minister's Office, because we are well aware that Mr. Perrin was also involved. Instead, Mr. Woodcock helped to do more to cover up the scandal. In the private sector, he would have been fired and the police would have been called. As a member of the Conservative Party, he became the chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Resources.
David van Hemmen was Mr. Wright's executive assistant in the Prime Minister's Office. Not only was he aware of the illegal plan to pay back Mr. Duffy, but he also helped to transfer the funds. He took the cheque to the bank of Mr. Duffy's lawyer. He was aware enough of what was going on to be in possession of that cheque, which the RCMP described as key evidence of corruption. Once again, what was his punishment? He was promoted to the position of policy adviser to the Minister of State for Finance.
Patrick Rogers was the director of parliamentary affairs in the PMO. According to the RCMP, he and Senator Gerstein were involved in trying to put an end to the Deloitte audit in order to protect Mike Duffy. Mr. Rogers also had dealings with Senator Tkachuk and Senator Stewart Olsen, who whitewashed the Senate report about Mike Duffy by removing any criticisms of his behaviour. What happened to Mr. Rogers as a result of this unacceptable behaviour? He is now the director of policy for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Finally, let us talk about Ray Novak, who was the Prime Minister's deputy chief of staff. We know two things about Ray Novak. He knew enough about this sordid affair to call Mike Duffy a serial liar, and he worked on the Senate file with Senator LeBreton. If we are thinking about accepting that the Prime Minister knew nothing about what was happening—and that is a big if—then clearly Ray Novak knew much more and he never shared that information with the Prime Minister. What was his sentence? Ray Novak replaced Nigel Wright as the Prime Minister's chief of staff.
Canadians have the right to wonder how the Prime Minister can trust Ray Novak to be his chief of staff. Why replace a chief of staff who, according to the Prime Minister himself, misled his boss with another person who allegedly did the same thing?
The concept is very simple. At the end of the day, in the private sector, if any chief executive officer presided over such chaotic behaviour from his or her senior staff, or if any board of directors was faced with a chief executive officer who the RCMP, in sworn affidavits, knew presided over an operation that may have violated three very serious sections of Canada's Criminal Code, that chief executive officer would have been shown the door. That chief executive officer would not have then promoted all the incompetent and deceitful staff who participated under his watch in what may in fact be a criminal conspiracy to subvert three important sections of the Criminal Code.
In his own guide for ministers and ministers of state, the Prime Minister outlined what ministerial responsibility allegedly should be. If one hires all the players, then one is responsible ultimately for their behaviour. The current Prime Minister is not living up to his own standard of responsibility, and Canadians are increasingly distrustful and disbelieving of the words of the Prime Minister.
The government's stories and answers make no sense at all: Mr. Wright was a great Canadian; then, all of a sudden, he accepted full responsibility and resigned; then, suddenly, we find out that he was fired.
The idea that he took sole responsibility for a criminal act has no basis at all in law. If a group of people conspire to violate the Criminal Code, it really is not acceptable at the end of the day if one of them says, “You know what, let me take the blame on this one and then you guys will owe me something down the line”.
That basis has absolutely no credibility, and Canadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that has lost its moral compass and simply is unable to tell the truth in the face of this very serious scandal.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-26 10:34 [p.1355]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and NDP counterpart, the House leader of the official opposition, for his question.
I agree with my colleague that the Conservatives are remaining silent. That is probably because the incessant talking points that are cranked out in the Prime Minister's Office really have nothing to say in the face of RCMP sworn affidavits given to a criminal court judge.
It is increasingly difficult, even for the great talent in the Prime Minister's Office, to fabricate talking points that Conservative members can get up and repeat in the House. I would suspect as the debate unfolds today that there will be very few Conservatives who will want to participate in the debate and very few who will be able to defend the actions of their own leader, as we have seen in media reports.
I agree with my colleague that the characters in this cover-up, whom we have called the “fraud squad” and the “dirty dozen”, the different people who were intimately involved both in the potentially criminal acts and the three Criminal Code violations identified so far by the RCMP, were intimately tied to the Prime Minister. He selected those people. He appointed some of them to the Senate. He has continued to give them immense responsibility in his office. However, when the heat came on, obviously he was unable to fire all of them, maybe because they knew too much, so they were sort of shifted laterally and then up a bit. They probably received pay raises by assuming senior positions in the offices of Conservative cabinet ministers.
I would also agree with my colleague that there needs to be full accountability in the Senate. Ultimately, we may disagree on the disposition of the upper chamber, but I think there is no disagreement whatsoever on the idea that the senators need to be fully accountable and that those who behaved in a way that the RCMP said was less than truthful in interviews with the police should also face consequences. I think that when the police finally get access to those emails and correspondence the list of people potentially charged in this criminal conspiracy will grow and we may very well see Conservative senators facing criminal charges as well.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-20 14:38 [p.1105]
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?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-20 14:40 [p.1105]
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?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-07 14:23 [p.880]
Mr. Speaker, the government falsely told the House on several occasions that there were no documents linking the Prime Minister's Office to Mike Duffy's payoff. We now know that that is not true and that the RCMP is investigating potentially criminal conduct by some PMO staffers.
In the documents handed over to the RCMP, was there a document from Chris Woodcock, former senior adviser to the Prime Minister, suggesting that Mike Duffy lie?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-07 15:03 [p.887]
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, in response a question from my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, began his answer with a personal attack, using language which in the past you have ruled unparliamentary.
I would ask if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister might wish to withdraw those first words of his answer. If he does not, Mr. Speaker, maybe you could review the record and come back to the House with some clarification as to what an appropriate answer would be.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-05 10:33 [p.735]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Wascana on his speech and on all his efforts throughout this scandal to clarify this situation and get some answers from the government and the Prime Minister. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister often does not want to answer questions. However, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent work on this issue.
My question is rather simple. For the past few days, we have seen some of the questions that have arisen from the statements or affidavits the RCMP has filed in court regarding the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office—probably Mr. Woodcock, who is now the chief of staff for the Minister of Natural Resources—in inventing a scenario or scheme to cover up money in the PMO, specifically the money that Mr. Wright gave to Senator Duffy, and inventing stories involving a line of credit for Mr. Duffy's house and claims that he borrowed the money from the Royal Bank.
Clearly, the police documents reveal that that was not true, and furthermore, that the Prime Minister's Office had advised a parliamentarian to lie. It is really disturbing that senior officials in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada would take the time to send emails instructing a parliamentarian to go on television and lie to the Canadian public about an issue as complex and important as the integrity of the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself.
I wonder if my colleague has any thoughts he could share on that.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-31 11:42 [p.642]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has in his possession a document that Canadians have yet to see that would help answer many questions.
Arthur Hamilton's invoice should itemize all of the work he did for the Prime Minister's Office. We know that he helped the PMO cover up this scandal.
Will the Prime Minister release that invoice so that we can see the details of the agreement with his office?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-31 11:43 [p.642]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated for months that no documents existed outlining the cover-up taking place in his own office. We now know that was not true, because Senator Duffy has made public documents and emails directly contradicting the Prime Minister. It is a sad day when Canadians have to learn more from Mike Duffy in eight days than from the Prime Minister in eight months. No wonder nobody believes the Prime Minister anymore.
Will the government make public the remaining documents, or will it wait for Senator Duffy to do so?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-28 14:21 [p.468]
Mr. Speaker, on February 13, the Prime Minister told this House that he had checked Pamela Wallin's expenses himself and that they were in order. Today he is saying the opposite.
When Mike Duffy was accused of inappropriate spending in December, the Prime Minister's Office told him that his expenses were in order. Today, the Prime Minister is saying otherwise.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why does he keep changing his story?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-28 14:22 [p.468]
Mr. Speaker, on May 16, after Nigel Wright told the Prime Minister about the $90,000 hush money, the Prime Minister said Nigel Wright had his full support. On May 19, the Prime Minister stated, “It is with great regret that I have accepted the resignation of Nigel Wright...”. Now the Prime Minister says Nigel Wright was fired. His story keeps changing every time, and nobody believes the Prime Minister.
When will the Prime Minister come clean and tell Canadians once and for all what he knows about this Conservative cover-up?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-28 14:23 [p.468]
Mr. Speaker, on June 5 in the House the Prime Minister indicated, incredulously, that Nigel Wright had acted alone, yet on October 24 he was forced to tell us a that a few people in the Prime Minister's Office knew about this scandal and its cover-up. These are numerous examples of a Prime Minister's story changing all the time.
Canadians no longer trust the Prime Minister to tell the truth. The only solution would be for him to finally testify under oath. If he has nothing to hide, nothing to cover up, why is he afraid of testifying under oath?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-23 14:58 [p.294]
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright did not act alone in the Mike Duffy affair. Ray Novak, the Prime Minister's current chief of staff, Marjory LeBreton, the former leader of the government in the Senate, and Conservative senators Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen have all been accused of participating in this scheme and threatening Mike Duffy in order to buy his silence. We are talking about potential criminal allegations.
How can the Prime Minister keep people in his inner circle who are the subject of these kinds of allegations?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-21 14:55 [p.169]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister falsely claimed that Nigel Wright was the only one aware of the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy. Today we learned more details about how the entire PMO orchestrated a plan for Mike Duffy and we learned that the Prime Minister ordered Mike Duffy not to co-operate with the Deloitte audit.
The RCMP and Mike Duffy's lawyer have shown us that the Prime Minister has not been honest about this scandal. When will he come clean and stop hiding his own role in this scandal?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-17 14:41 [p.57]
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP affidavits published this summer contradict the Conservative ministers on the Wright-Duffy affair.
Contrary to what they have been telling us for months, we know that Mr. Wright was not the only person who knew the details of the agreement and that he had hundreds of pages of documents. Let us see whether the Conservative ministers can be honest for once. We know that Mr. Duffy had a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office on February 11 of this year.
Whom did Mike Duffy meet at the Langevin Building on that occasion?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 14:24 [p.18540]
Mr. Speaker, the culture of corruption is so deep in the Prime Minister's Office that now two of his ex-chiefs of staff are facing RCMP investigations with respect to potential criminal behaviour involving legislators and other government officials.
The question must be asked: What does the Prime Minister ask his chiefs of staff to do that ends them in a police investigation and facing possible jail time?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 14:26 [p.18540]
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy, Saulie Zajdel, Bruce Carson, Arthur Porter: the Prime Minister clearly likes to surround himself with men of conviction. In Bruce Carson's case, I think he has five.
When did the Prime Minister decide that to work for him, one must either have a criminal record or be willing to obtain one?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2011-03-09 14:37 [p.8830]
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary falsely claims that everybody did it. He is missing a few key differences here. The RCMP raided the offices of the Conservatives, not ours. They forged documents, we did not. Their senior officials and senators are facing election fraud charges that could land them in jail and we are not. We followed the rules.
The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, a senior adviser in the campaign, was one of the key people controlling money in that election. What did Nigel Wright know about this electoral fraud and why did he not try to stop it?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2010-11-01 14:40 [p.5602]
Mr. Speaker, the waste does not end at reckless sole-sourced defence contracts.
Here is a quick tally from last year: consultants, up $3 billion; advertising, almost $200 million; and the Prime Minister's propaganda budget, $10 million, 30% more than two years ago. Ten million dollars is a lot of money for a Prime Minister who will never answer an unscripted question and has not had an open, transparent, public town hall meeting since he became Prime Minister.
How can the government justify all this waste?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2010-10-05 14:39 [p.4774]
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister was bullying us when he said that he would like to see strict post-employment rules so that a company cannot unfairly receive a government contract. Nigel Wright is leaving his position as an executive at Hawker Beechcraft, and he plans to return there immediately after he finishes his temporary job at the Prime Minister's Office.
Given that Hawker Beechcraft has millions of dollars in government contracts, why is the Prime Minister not applying the post-employment rules to Mr. Wright?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2010-10-05 14:40 [p.4774]
Mr. Speaker, Onex owns Celestica, one of the world's largest manufacturers of electronics and computer systems. They have holdings in the automotive industry, plastics and steel, warranty insurance, and even American private health care. The possibility for conflicts of interest are enormous.
The minister mentioned the Ethics Commissioner. Today the Ethics Commissioner said that only Mr. Wright or the Prime Minister's office can release the details of Mr. Wright's employment contract with Onex. She said, “I would love to have them do that”. So why does the minister not do it right now?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2007-11-13 14:52 [p.816]
Mr. Speaker, for the past seven months, the Conservative government has been hiding a scandal that touches the heart of the Conservative Party.
In March 2007, the Prime Minister's Office was made aware of allegations involving the former prime minister, but decided to cover them up. In September, the same thing happened.
Will the so-called public inquiry have the mandate to determine who within the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office endeavoured to cover up this scandal? Will the public inquiry have a say in the consequences those individuals will have to face?
Results: 1 - 30 of 30

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data