Bob Rae

[Ethics, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Cooperation.

Could the minister tell us when she decided to pay back the additional costs for the limousine? Was it at the same time as she paid back the costs for the hotel and the spectacular glass of orange juice, or was it later on? Was it in fact after the debate took place yesterday with respect to the cost of the limousine?

[National Defence, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if they accept the conclusions, then let us pay close attention to what the Auditor General clearly said. He clearly stated that when National Defence provided answers, its representatives knew that the cost was likely to rise, but chose not inform parliamentarians.

So the question is very simple. If the Prime Minister accepts the conclusions, does he accept responsibility for misleading Parliament?

[National Defence, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Prime Minister did not actually answer my question with respect to his own personal level of awareness with respect to whether those documents were sent in and what they said.

The problem we have is that there does not appear to be anything called ministerial accountability left in the Government of Canada.

The Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for the conclusions of the Auditor General's report, which are extremely critical of the lack of information provided to Parliament. His ministers refuse to take responsibility for the conclusions. His House leader says there is a big difference between what the departments have said and what the government itself is concluding.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister this: does he or does he not accept the conclusions of the Auditor General of Canada—

[National Defence, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, in committee today, said that he had “received letters from the deputy ministers of the departments indicating that the departments disagreed with our conclusions”. That is with respect to the F-35 contract.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister this: was he aware that such letters were being sent in, or were his ministers aware that such letters were being sent in to the Auditor General on behalf of the departments in question?

[Points of Order, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise you that I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the House leader with respect to the point of privilege that I raised on the subject of the Auditor General's report and I would appreciate the opportunity to do that tomorrow, if possible.

[Ethics, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not complicated. I will ask the Prime Minister to respond to it.

The apology from the Minister of International Cooperation and her payback only came eight months after it was discovered and made public.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, who is responsible for these standards: is $1,000 a day appropriate for a limousine for a minister in London when such a cost was clearly not necessary or required for the job, or is it not appropriate?

Why will the Prime Minister of Canada not answer that simple question?

[Ethics, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the Conservatives are having problems with the rules is clear: it is because the Prime Minister himself does not follow the rules. He continues to mislead the House when he talks about a contract that does not exist and has never existed, even though he said in the past that it did exist. Perhaps this also explains the problem at the Old Port of Montreal and why the minister never paid back the cost of her limousine.

Will the minister pay back the cost of the limousine, since this has not yet been done?

[Ethics, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if we have to choose between the record of Hansard and the Prime Minister's newly discovered memory with respect to these questions, I think we will take Hansard.

Perhaps one of the reasons we can explain the lack of standards with respect to even being prepared to admit to having said something that he said is that it might explain also the conduct of the Minister of International Cooperation. It might also explain what is going on at the Old Port of Montreal.

How does the Prime Minister feel about the revelations today, showing clearly an abuse of office, of misspending of public dollars, catered meals, limousines--the same pattern we have seen with the Minister of International Cooperation? How does he explain this kind of activity at the heart of his government?

[National Defence, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 2010, the Prime Minister accused the then leader of the opposition of wanting to tear up jobs “by tearing up the contract”. Therefore, he clearly stated that there was in fact a contract with respect to the F-35. It is a statement the Prime Minister repeated again during the election campaign.

If there was in fact no contract, which is what the Prime Minister is now saying, and he is saying there is in fact still no contract, why did the Prime Minister mislead the House on November 17, 2010?

[Ethics, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister is swanning around London in a $1,000-a-day limousine, many of her employees are receiving this letter:

We regret to inform you that your position is affected under the Government of Canada Workforce adjustment measures.

In other words, these workers at CIDA are being fired.

How does the government justify the discrepancy in behaviour? The minister of the crown is going around buying $16 orange juice and staying in rooms that are unaffordable. How does the minister possibly justify this kind of an expense, this kind of an abuse? She has not paid back for the limousine.

Can the Prime Minister please tell us how—