House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that it was a personal cheque. That is why the RCMP is looking into the matter, and so is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is why Nigel Wright took sole responsibility for his actions. He acted alone in writing that cheque.
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, she says that we are inventing things. It is a fact that in 1994 the leader of the NDP was offered a bribe, it is a fact that in 2010 he said that it did not happen, it is a fact that in 2011 he met with police, and it is a fact that only two weeks ago he confessed that all of this happened.
To not report the crime of a bribe is totally irresponsible. The City of Montreal is trying to get to the bottom of corruption through the Charbonneau commission, and Canadians deserve to know why it is that the NDP leader was hiding corruption in the city of Montreal.
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Prime Minister found out that Nigel Wright had been directly involved and had written a personal cheque for $90,000, he made all of the information public and Nigel Wright resigned because he acted alone, of his own accord. That is what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons.
Now, what we need to hear is what the NDP leader knew about corruption in Montreal. He hid that information for 17 years. He did not go to the RCMP, and now he is trying to hide behind this ruckus. He needs to tell the public what he knew about corruption in Laval.
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered that question specifically yesterday in the House of Commons. In his statement when he resigned as chief of staff, Nigel Wright took sole responsibility for this matter, which is as it should be, because that reflects the facts of the matter.
On this issue of payments and so on, it is interesting that New Democrats are so self-righteous, given that they had as their revenue critic somebody who disrespected taxpayers by not paying his taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency. For New Democrats to get up in the House and be so self-righteous about the interests of taxpayers while not paying their own taxes takes quite a bit of gall.
41st General Election May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, Senate expenses should be used for Senate duties.
As we have put forward very clearly in our submissions to Elections Canada, the Conservative campaign was financed by Conservative funds, straight up and that is very clear in the returns that we put forward to Elections Canada.
That is what taxpayers expect. That is what the law requires. We have obeyed the elections laws in our country.
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is looking into the answer to that question. This is precisely why we have an ethics commissioner and why the RCMP was called in to investigate this matter. The Liberal and Conservative parties examined this matter in the Senate.
What about Senator Merchant and her husband, who are hiding $1.7 million in an offshore account? Is that illegal, yes or no?
I have a simple question for the Liberals. Hiding $1.7 million from taxpayers, is it illegal, yes or no?
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this matter has been put forward to the RCMP and it will examine all these matters and appropriate action will be taken.
Speaking again of appropriate action, the member for Wascana used the word “repudiate”. Will the Liberals repudiate a Liberal senator who is hiding $1.7 million in an offshore account?
When Liberal senators take millions of dollars and hide them in an offshore account, it means that middle-class Canadians, who the new Liberal leader pretends to stand for, need to have a higher tax burden to make up for Liberal senators who are hiding their tax liabilities in offshore accounts.
When will the Liberals come clean on their senators hiding millions of dollars offshore?
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that when Nigel Wright resigned, he took sole responsibility for this matter. That is exactly as it should be, because that is, frankly, exactly what happened.
Speaking of the question of responsibility that the member for Wascana raises, where is the responsibility and accountability in the Liberal Party for one of their Liberal senators, Senator Merchant, who is hiding $1.7 million, that we know of, in an offshore account, avoiding paying taxes in our country.
If the Liberals believe, as they say, in accountability, responsibility and standing up for taxpayers, why will they not come clean on this $1.7 million that are being hidden from Canadian taxpayers?
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, again, Mr. Wright will receive only what the law requires and nothing more.
However, equally, if the NDP members want to be so strident about accountability of people in public life, it would be great if they would find out from their leader, and if their leader would come clean with Canadians, who he is covering up for in Montreal, why did it take him so long to admit that he was offered a bribe and why will he not come clean with Canadian taxpayers after 17 years? He has a responsibility to come clean with what he knew about corruption in the city of Montreal.
Ethics May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as I just finished saying for the member for Halifax in French, Mr. Wright will receive only what is required by law and nothing more. It is quite simple.
What is equally required in our country for accountability and responsibility is again for the leader of the New Democratic Party to come forward on this issue of corruption in the city of Montreal. He met in 1994, and said that it did not happen 10 years later. In 2011, he met with police. Only two weeks ago he came clean about this.
What is it about corruption in Montreal that the NDP leader is trying to cover up and who is he trying to cover up for his advantage?