Marc Garneau

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

You can take it from me there was.

[Veterans Affairs, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts.

The Conservatives routinely fire wounded soldiers when they are just about to qualify for their pension.

In another insult, 20,000 veterans have been rejected for help for their funerals under the Last Post Fund. Now we learn that the Conservatives cut this burial fund by 22% last year.

Meanwhile, spending for the PMO has increased by 7%.

Why are the Conservatives expanding the PMO while they slash support for our veterans?

[Veterans Affairs, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are tossing out our wounded soldiers just as they are about to qualify for their pensions. Just as insulting, some 20,000 veterans have been denied funeral assistance from the Last Post Fund.

Now we learn that last year, the Conservatives cut this burial fund by 22%. Meanwhile, the PMO budget increased by 7%.

Why are the Conservatives increasing spending in the PMO while they slash support for our veterans?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, no one believes the Prime Minister.

Canadians are not fools. They do not believe that this extremely controlling Prime Minister knew nothing about the $90,000 cheque given to Mike Duffy or about the 13 seasoned employees who were covering up the scandal.

If the Prime Minister was so angry about Mike Duffy's expenses, why did he authorize the Conservative Party to pay his $13,000 legal fees?

When will the Prime Minister testify under oath about this Conservative scandal?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party covered Mike Duffy's legal fees in relation to his fraudulent expenses. Writing a cheque to cover expenses does not cost $13,000. This is proof of direct negotiations with the PMO to organize and cover up this scandal.

If the Prime Minister thinks that Mike Duffy's behaviour is unacceptable, why is he the only Conservative whose legal fees the party covered?

Exactly how much did the Conservatives pay to buy Mike's Duffy's silence?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it smells not like pizza right now but like utter desperation on that side of the House.

Arthur Hamilton is well known for mopping up ethical problems for the current government. He passed on a $13,000 extra cheque to Mike Duffy. Just what was that money for? Why did the Prime Minister's entourage pay Duffy's legal fees unless there was something very serious to cover up?

The ethics code of Ontario's law society prohibits a lawyer from assisting in any dishonesty, fraud, crime or illegal conduct—

[Ethics, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Perrin was the Prime Minister's personal lawyer and worked in the PMO.

According to Mike Duffy, Perrin was actively involved in the scheme to offer him $90,000 to buy his silence. In fact, Perrin allegedly negotiated the agreement himself.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister reported Mr. Perrin's potentially criminal actions to the Law Society of Upper Canada? If not, when will he do so?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. When the minister's chief of staff, Chris Woodcock, was in the PMO, he was up to his neck in the scheme to have Nigel Wright pay $90,000 to repay Mike Duffy's expense claims. It was Woodcock who wrote Duffy's bogus media lines, used to deceive Canadians about the source of the $90,000. As late as May 15, Woodcock emailed Duffy to see if he was still sticking to the fraudulent lines that he had written for him.

Does the minister still have confidence in his chief of staff?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the fact that we have just come through six years of deficits in a row and that after two fantastic years, 2006 and 2007, because of huge Liberal surpluses since 2008, we have added $160 billion. If we break that down, it is about $30 billion per year. That is $1,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child every year since 2008.

I wonder what my hon. colleague thinks about the fact that we are strapping the future of our generations that will follow us with such debt. It will be more than $1,000 per person—

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, after that long string of self-congratulatory comments about their finances, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question.

After the first two years the Conservatives were government, by 2008, after inheriting two years of massive surpluses from the previous Liberal administration, they started building up a debt, which today has added $160 billion to our national debt.

From 2008 to 2013, five years, that works out to a little over $30 billion per year that the government has added to the national debt. That is equivalent to $1,000 for every man, woman and child every year since 2008. Of course by the time that $1,000 gets repaid, it will be a lot more than that because it is part of a huge debt with a lot of interest.

I wonder if that has been communicated to the Canadian public.