Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the information provided by the RCMP does not indicate that the Prime Minister did not know anything. The RCMP is saying that it does not yet have evidence about the Prime Minister's involvement in every detail, but it confirmed that the Prime Minister did know. This is an important point.

Nigel Wright wrote the following to the Prime Minister's Office staff, and I quote: “Senator LeBreton agrees that Chris might not be fully on board”.

Might not be fully on board with what, exactly?

[Ethics, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP report says that the former director of parliamentary affairs for Senator LeBreton, Christopher Montgomery, advised the Prime Minister's Office not to get involved in the auditing of the senators' expenses. Despite the warnings, the Prime Minister's posse still decided to try to tinker with the facts in the Deloitte report.

Did the Prime Minister, along with his staff, think he was entitled to interfere with the auditing of Senate expenses conducted by a so-called independent firm?

[Ethics, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, but it does not answer the question.

Wright had approval with a couple stipulations. I would like to quote what Nigel Wright said about one of these stipulations:

I would like to understand who if anyone Sen. Duffy ever intends to inform about point 3.... I assume that I know the answer, but I would like it to be explicit. For its part, the Party would not inform anyone.

Was the Prime Minister aware of the third point of this repayment agreement?

[Ethics, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on February 22, Nigel Wright sent an email to Benjamin Perrin and other individuals at the Prime Minister's Office. In this email regarding the agreement to repay Duffy's illegal claims, Nigel Wright wrote, “I now have the go-ahead on point 3, with a couple stipulations”.

Who gave approval to Nigel Wright? Was it the Prime Minister?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a little earlier, my colleague opposite asked a very interesting question. I was not an MP in 2001 either. However, you do not have to be an MP to know what is going on in Parliament.

The federal government and the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia began negotiating safety measures for offshore workers in 2001. The Liberal government had plenty of time to put this type of measure in place.

Why did it not do so? Why not drop the rhetoric and talk about the real actions and achievements of the Liberal government on issues related to worker safety?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s Minister of Natural Resources said that although discussions with the federal government regarding the implementation of recommendation 29 are ongoing, Ottawa has not shown any interest in creating a separate body to regulate safety.

Someone mentioned timelines. It took over 10 years for Bill C-5 to be finalized and debated in this House. In this case, we are also talking about a deficiency the Conservatives seem to have in their attitude towards their provincial counterparts.

We also saw this with the health transfers and plans to enhance a Canadian pension plan. We see this in other areas as well. What is happening in my colleague's riding regarding employment insurance is a very good example of this Conservative government's lack of co-operation, failure to listen and lack of leadership when it comes to working with the provinces.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

She stressed how much leadership Nova Scotia has provided in this area and the degree to which the province has had to wait for the federal government before seeing any action.

As she mentioned yesterday, when we were debating Bill C-2, in Quebec, we have seen experts, groups and provincial institutions conducting studies and pilot projects like InSite. They are afraid that, because of the federal legislation on the table, their 10 years of research and effort will be completely sabotaged by Bill C-2. It is an interesting parallel.

In her speech, the hon. member spoke about recommendation 29, which is not addressed at all in Bill C-5. However, in his report, the Hon. Robert Wells wrote that, in his view, it was the most important recommendation.

Do we know why the Conservatives are tabling a bill today that does not address recommendation 29, which seemed to be so important? If we do not know, we have a serious problem, because it is something we ought to be able to understand.

[Ethics, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, every time we ask the Conservatives about the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in the Senate expense scandal, they seem to immediately forget the question and resort to the same meaningless lines.

We want to know which documents were handed over to the RCMP. We want to know which version of the story—because there are several—is accurate. We never get an answer. Here is another question.

Did Nigel Wright contact the Prime Minister's Office after he was contacted by the RCMP? Canadians deserve an answer.

[Ethics, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, do the Conservatives think that exchanging information with a police force is a way of taking part in a police investigation?

[Ethics, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on November 7, the Prime Minister told the House that his office was not being investigated by the RCMP. However, literally one minute later he said, “the Prime Minister's Office has, at all times and in all manner, provided all and any information that the RCMP is requesting”.

Is the RCMP investigating his office or not?