Everything is in the timing, Mr. Speaker.
I always appreciate the opportunity to express a few thoughts with regard to important issues, and this is an important issue before the House today. I would like to put everything in a proper perspective.
I would like to give a couple of doses of reality, if I could put it that way, because there is no doubt that it has been an interesting process. Should a government be able to prorogue a session? Is it proper to prorogue a session? Why do we find ourselves in this situation today where we have what appears to be a divided House on an important matter?
Ultimately it is in the best interests of Canadians that we move forward and continue to apply pressure where it needs to be applied, and that is right to the Prime Minister's Office. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that is ultimately the reason we are where we are today on the legislative agenda.
New Democrats often talk about the Senate and issues relating to the Senate and so forth. There are all sorts of issues. We are concerned about the Senate. As a member of an opposition party and of the House of Commons, I do not want to lose focus on what this is really all about. It is about the Prime Minister's Office and the unethical behaviour that has come from that office
We need to remember that when we were sitting in this place in June a great deal of pressure was applied to the Prime Minister, as the public were demanding answers with regard to a $90,000 cheque. That $90,000 cheque appeared to have originated somewhere out of the Prime Minister's Office. We have been challenging the Prime Minister to be straightforward with us, to tell us what actually took place, but there has been a great deal of disappointment.
I asked a question earlier in question period today. I have had the opportunity to talk to residents in Provencher, Brandon, and Souris, many of my own constituents, and other Canadians. There is a credibility issue here. Even the Prime Minister's own Conservative members are starting to seriously doubt him. He is losing the confidence of Canadians in a rapid fashion. I believe we are witnessing a Prime Minister who wants to avoid accountability, and at the end of the day he cannot do that.
The Prime Minister successfully came up with an idea on how to prevent the House from resuming on September 16, the day it was supposed to resume. We were supposed to be here on September 16, and in mid-September we found out that the Prime Minister did not want to return to the House. We found out he wanted to come back on October 16 as opposed to September 16. Why? He found the tool that he could use. He prorogued the session. Because he prorogued the session, that meant to could pick the date to return, and he chose October 16. We lost 20 sitting days.
What would likely have happened during those 20 sitting days? I suspect that the Prime Minister would have been on his feet answering questions with regard to the Prime Minister's Office and the behaviour of not one but many within his office in relation to the $90,000 cheque that was used in essence to pay off Senator Duffy. The Prime Minister was concerned about that to the degree that he felt he would just prorogue.
I also believe that he chose October 16 intentionally, because he had a sense of what was going to be happening on the following few days. He picked a day for the throne speech, and then in the days that followed, he was in Europe talking about a free trade agreement in the hope that the free trade deal would ultimately make Canadians forget about the scandal taking place that appears to be well rooted within the Prime Minister's Office.
It is a growing scandal, as we heard this morning at a press conference with Mr. Duffy's lawyers. It is really starting to open up. It does not look good for the Prime Minister. Where was he the day after the throne speech? He was nowhere to be found and was only to resurface after he had a tentative deal with the European Union. Yes, the free trade agreement is very important and will be given due diligence in the chamber and will ultimately be voted on, but that is not the issue we should be talking about.
I believe that we should be talking about the Prime Minister's Office and what has taken place there. There are very serious allegations of illegal activity. Before we broke last June, the Prime Minister said he knew nothing about the $90,000 cheque and what took place inside his office. He only found out about it after the fact, once it became public through the media. That is what he was proclaiming to anyone who listened.