Justin Trudeau

[Ethics, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions about the management of his office. He says that he has nothing more to say. Canadians have the right to know if they can still have confidence in him.

Can the government explain why the chief of staff cut a cheque to thwart an investigation?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yet again, we are not getting an answer. The real question remains: why? No one is buying the pitiful excuse from the chief of staff that he wrote a $90,000 cheque to a parliamentarian to supposedly save taxpayers money. There were other ways of doing that.

What real reason did Nigel Wright give the Prime Minister for writing Mike Duffy a cheque for $90,000?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is more spin, bluster and blunder, but not answers. No answers to those or to these.

How could the PMO put out a statement on May 14, about the deal, when on May 15, the Prime Minister still said he did not know about the cheque? Secondly, why did the PM give Nigel Wright his full confidence, instead of firing him on the spot? When will the government release a copy of the cheque? Most of all, why? The excuse of wanting to repay the taxpayers does not jive. What real reason did Nigel Wright give for writing that cheque?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the unanswered questions are as follows. What was the secret agreement? Will they release the correspondence? When did the PMO tell Mike Duffy not to co-operate with the Deloitte audit and, most of all, why?

What real reason did Nigel Wright give the Prime Minister for cutting that $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the House rises, the government will have deliberately left crucial questions answered on the $90,000 cheque—

The government will have left unanswered questions on the $90,000 cheque in the—

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you sought it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be directed to develop guidelines under which the Auditor General is asked to perform more detailed audits of parliamentary spending and report these guidelines to the House no later than December 10, 2013.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

I move that the House ask the Auditor General to conduct performance audits of the House of Commons administration every three years.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

I move that the Board of Internal Economy begin to post expense reports organized by member, every quarter, on the Parliament of Canada website, in a form more accessible to the public.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that the Board of Internal Economy begin posting the travel and hospitality expenses of members on a quarterly basis to the Parliament of Canada website in a manner similar to the guidelines used by the government for proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses.

[Ethics, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, confusion abounds, and no one has any idea what is going on with the cheque, the secret fund and the government's conflicting versions.

Former Conservative staffer Émilie Potvin was right on the money when she alluded to the government's paranoid mentality. Canadians deserve answers.

Will the government finally show Canadians a copy of that infamous $90,000 cheque?