House of Commons Hansard #136 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was panama.

Topics

Ministerial Expenditures
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, as I have answered many times in this House, we seek to deliver our services to Canadians with the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. Ministers follow that direction, which is why our costs are significantly lower than they were under the previous government.

In the case of the minister in question, only appropriate costs that were expended have been reimbursed.

Ministerial Expenditures
Oral Questions

June 7th, 2012 / 2:40 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, if the costs were indeed appropriate, the government should have no trouble showing us the changes and the explanations.

The Minister of International Cooperation's attitude and silence are completely unacceptable. She uses public moneys to fund her expensive taste, all while cutting international aid, closing research centres, telling Canadians to tighten their belts, cutting public services and stealing money from seniors. That is unacceptable.

Right after she was caught red-handed for expenses tied to her luxury London junket, she made three requests to change her expense claims.

People have the right to know. Will she explain how and why her claims were changed?

Ministerial Expenditures
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said many times, only appropriate expenses have been reimbursed.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, the problem with defending the minister for luxurious living is the Conservatives are defending the now indefensible, in the same way that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has for months been defending allegations of widespread voter fraud. We now learn that he himself is under investigation. Given the very serious nature of these allegations, it has compromised his ability to do his job.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and remove the parliamentary secretary from his position while this investigation is under way?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the member has already indicated that he filed documents with Elections Canada, with regard to that campaign almost four years ago. They were audited and confirmed and he has not been contacted by Elections Canada ever since.

However, what we do know is that just this week the NDP, yet again, had to accept guilt for breaking the law in accepting illegal union donations. What we do not yet know, because its leader will not reveal it, is how much illegal dirty money it did it take and when and how much it will be paying back.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a general rule in this House that when that members stands, whoever he is defending has been benched. So I guess that is our answer. He has not been put on the backbenches until this investigation is complete.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is named in court documents for questionable election spending with Holinshed Research Group. In 2009, Holinshed received $125,000 from the Canada economic plan.

Who signed off on this expenditure and when? Will the government show us the GeoVote application that Canadian taxpayers paid for? Where is it?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, they ask the same question again and again but they refuse to answer the obvious questions that Canadians are posing to them--

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has the floor.

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, they do not like these facts, which is why they keep interrupting me.

They received illegal donations from unions in contravention of the law.

The only thing that we do not know, because yesterday the leader of the NDP refused to reveal it, is how much illegal money it took and whether it will actually pay it back.

On this side of the House, we follow the rules. Why can the NDP not?

Elections Canada
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's glass house from which it throws stones is getting larger and larger.

The NDP has been caught breaking election laws twice this year, and we have learned of yet another time when it issued questionable practices. This time, in the 2012 leadership guide “Moving Forward”, it had advertising from corporations throughout. Today I will be referring this matter to Elections Canada to investigate how much sponsorship money the NDP collected from these advertisements.

Could the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) please remind the House of the steps our government took to crack down on these types of sponsorships from big business that the NDP is accepting?

Elections Canada
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Alberta

Conservative

Tim Uppal Minister of State (Democratic Reform)

Mr. Speaker, that type of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and breaks Canadian election laws.

The Elections Act clearly indicates that corporate and union donations are not allowed. Political parties are required to raise their own money through donations from ordinary Canadians.

In fact, it was this government that brought accountability and transparency to political financing after 13 long years of Liberal rule, such as outright banning of union and corporate donations, in 2006.

The NDP must provide transparency on these questionable and potentially illegal practices.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, to adequately manage the environment and the economy, in-depth knowledge and expertise are required, however the Conservatives have decided to make do without them. They are shutting out scientists and promoting their ideology without taking the facts into account.

Eliminating the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is irresponsible. Who said that? A former Conservative member and environment critic, Bob Mills.

Will the minister listen to his former colleague and the Canadian public, and reconsider his irresponsible decision to shut down the round table?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, once and for all, the national round table has served its purpose. When it was created a quarter of a century ago, there were very few sources of policy advice on the relationship between the environment and the economy. That is not the case today. This $5 million can be better spent elsewhere to protect the environment and the economy.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, the government still needs facts, and fact seems to be a four-letter word that the Prime Minister is really offended by.

Let us be clear about what we are talking about. Bob Mills is a former Conservative MP and former environment critic. He is harshly criticizing this reckless decision.

The national round table has provided decades of non-partisan, expert advice on managing economic and environmental challenges. The Conservatives are punishing the round table for stating facts.

Why will the Conservatives not end the attack on science and restore the national round table?