Chris Charlton

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the comments by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. As one might expect, I was a bit surprised and interested in his comments about the Newfoundland dictionary. I want to ask him about that dictionary because there are some words that have been used in the House where the meaning is not entirely clear to me.

On this side of the House, we have been asking the Prime Minister about the investigation into the Prime Minister's Office around the Wright-Duffy scandal. Clearly, we know that the RCMP is involved. We know that questions are being asked of a number of staff members in the Prime Minister's Office. We do not know who else is being questioned by the RCMP but we do know that the PMO is involved. However, when we rise in the House to ask the Prime Minister a question about the investigation to get some clarity so that the Canadian public can understand what the breadth and scope of this investigation is, which I would argue every Canadian is entitled to as we are talking about the money of Canadian taxpayers being at stake here, he responds by saying that there is no investigation. Therefore, people are being questioned, the RCMP is doing the questioning, but apparently there is no investigation.

I wonder whether the member could turn to his Newfoundland dictionary and tell us what the definition of an investigation might be. Perhaps that would help us answer a question that the Prime Minister refuses to answer.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to table four petitions today that come from Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, all in support of my bill, Bill C-201.

As members know, many tradespersons can be out of work in one area of the country while another region suffers from temporary skilled labour shortages, simply because the cost of travelling is too high. My bill would allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so that they could secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres from their homes.

The petitioners are urging this Parliament to pass that bill immediately.

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for over six months the Prime Minister maintained that only Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright were involved. He said there was no legal arrangement between them, and the Prime Minister insisted that no one else in his office was aware of this payoff and cover-up.

How could the Prime Minister repeatedly make these claims when so many of his staffers and party officials were aware that they were false?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the question asked what threat was made, and all we get is more farce and another non-answer.

On Thursday, the Prime Minister told the media that only Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy did something wrong. Does the Prime Minister really believe that none of the other staff in his office who covered up the truth and facilitated this payment were also at fault?

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not accurate. The police only confirmed that they do not yet have evidence to indict the Prime Minister; the RCMP did not say whether he was aware of the cover-up scheme.

A dozen PMO staffers, public servants at Privy Council, senior senators, and the head of the Conservative fund were all working to deal with the Duffy disaster. The RCMP confirms the Prime Minister was aware of something.

What was it?

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that the Prime Minister was not aware of the $90,000 payoff. However, the RCMP alleges that the Prime Minister was broadly aware and that he signed off on something. We just do not know what. We do know the Prime Minister's senior staff were devoting large amounts of time and effort to this cover-up.

Will the member confirm that the Prime Minister was briefed in broad terms on his staff's efforts to solve the problem with Mike Duffy's expenses?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations in relation to section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

[41st General Election, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, co-operating with authorities is just not something the Conservatives like to do. Jenni Byrne instructed campaign staff not to talk to Elections Canada for three months.

Is it really the position of the minister that Michael Sona did everything to cover his tracks, then miraculously started leaking precise details, but only to favourable Conservative staff? When will the government finally bring forward legislation to clean up this unethical behaviour?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the deputy House leader with great interest, as always, and I have to say that we do sometimes find common ground. He began by saying that he thought this motion by the Liberals was perhaps a political stunt. On some level, I have to agree with that.

I mean, it is true that, while our leader had exchanges with the Conservatives 43 times last week, the Liberals only asked three of 45 questions on this issue; so why this motion today? The member is right: it is the NDP that has been taking this issue seriously and that has been taking leadership on this file.

Moreover, we know that the Liberals voted against the NDP motion to restrict senator travel and partisan activities. That too puts their motivation into question. Of course, we know they want to deflect attention from their own corruption in the Senate with Liberal senators like Mac Harb.

I do have a question for the deputy House leader.

We see him rise a lot in the House. People watching this debate here today will remember that he often stands up and tables documents in the House on behalf of the government. I wonder whether he would agree today to table all of those documents in this House that are related to the issue of the Prime Minister's knowledge of Nigel Wright in the Duffy affair. I wonder whether he would agree today to stand in the House and table all documents, so that we can ascertain when the story will actually stop changing.

[Petitions, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like Canadians from coast to coast to coast, my constituents on Hamilton Mountain are profoundly worried about the Senate expense scandal. They are also worried about the fact that there is no place for an unelected, unaccountable Senate in our democracy. They believe that the $92.5 million per year it costs to run this archaic institution would be better spent elsewhere and that appointed senators, especially those who abuse their privileges, do not represent the interests or values of Canadians.

As a result, this petition, signed by hundreds of people in my riding, calls on the Government of Canada to abolish the unelected, unaccountable Senate once and for all.