The one that quite frankly is wearing very thin right now, and is insulting the intelligence of not only parliamentarians but also Canadians, is the Prime Minister's repeated talking points on the question of the billionaire island Christmas holiday. The questions have been quite direct to the Prime Minister. He doesn't answer them directly. He'll give his standard talking point that it was a private vacation, and they look forward to answering any questions that the office of the Ethics Commissioner may have on this and of him.
Well, today the questions from the opposition, both from the NDP and ourselves, became even more direct. We asked the Prime Minister to answer the simple question of whether or not he's met with the Ethics Commissioner yet. What would possibly prevent the Prime Minister from saying, yes, he has, or no, he hasn't but he plans to in the near future? But he still gives out the same shopworn, tired talking point that they will fully comply and work with the Ethics Commissioner.
Mr. Chair, that to me suggests that I don't think the Prime Minister has met with the Ethics Commissioner. And if not, why not? Perhaps it's because he's stalling, he's stonewalling. He doesn't want to meet because he knows that he would have to give her the direct answers that he's not giving to Parliament or to Canadians. We know now that someone was misled with the revelation that there was an alternative mode of transportation to get the Prime Minister to the Aga Khan's island. Originally, and for many question periods in a row, the Prime Minister said the only method of transportation was through private helicopter. In extenuating circumstances, I'm sure the Ethics Commissioner would agree that no protocols were breached and no laws were broken—except we know now that there were alternative modes of transportation.
To add to the mix, now the Prime Minister is suggesting that the RCMP determines his method of transportation for security reasons. Really? Can you show us perhaps some correspondence, some emails, some verification of that? If there is such verification, why would the Prime Minister not want to share that with Parliament and with Canadians? Why foster this culture of mistrust?
I know how Canadians react when the prime minister, or for that matter any politician, doesn't answer a direct and very simple question. We saw that first-hand in the last Parliament, when under questioning from Mr. Mulcair to the prime minister of the day on Senator Duffy, the prime minister, much to my chagrin and others', kept with the talking points. I and others felt he could have simply defused the situation by saying that he never instructed Mike Duffy to do anything, but he just kept following the same talking points, because the strategic advisors, the communication smart guys, felt he should keep to the script—