Mr. Speaker, what we saw today was that Deloitte appeared before the Senate internal economy committee. They took questions, and they reaffirmed that the forensic audit was conducted with the highest standards and the utmost confidentiality.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 43% of the vote.
Ethics November 28th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, what we saw today was that Deloitte appeared before the Senate internal economy committee. They took questions, and they reaffirmed that the forensic audit was conducted with the highest standards and the utmost confidentiality.
The Environment November 27th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, hunting, angling, and trapping are central to the livelihood, recreation, and tradition of many Canadians. That is why I am proud that our government cancelled this tender as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Our Conservative government continues to stand up for law-abiding hunters and sports shooters.
Now, of course, we know that the Liberals and the NDP probably would have continued this study, on the grounds that the environmental impact of bullets on the forest floor would have been a good pretext for onerous environmental restrictions on the use of bullets, and they probably would bring back the long gun registry.
We will continue to stand up for hunters—
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those kind words. It is always very nice to see such a collegial atmosphere in the House. I do like flowers and, of course, with lemons I like to make lemonade. My two daughters, this summer, actually had a lemonade stand where they sold lemonade for 5¢ on the street. They did very well. I am very proud of them.
I thank the hon. member very much for those kind words and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, again, the subjects of this investigation are Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright.
However, when we are talking about RCMP investigations, I want to read a quote: “Under RCMP questioning”, the member for Wascana “seemed uneasy about discussing his one-time cabinet colleague. 'I guess others will have to make the judgment call about how to characterize...'” the activities of the member for King—Hants with respect to the income trust. It went on further to say that the member for Wascana:
...has no e-mail service, either on a handheld device or even on his desktop computer, saying “it just ticks me off”—especially when colleagues thumb their BlackBerries[sic] at meetings.
Let me get this: no BlackBerrys, no emails, no records. That is the Liberal accountability.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, again, the subjects of this investigation are Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy accepted payments that he did not incur and Nigel Wright made a repayment for those expenses, which also was inappropriate. That is the subject of this investigation.
The document does go on further to explain how the Prime Minister ordered that his office would assist in this matter.
It further says that the Prime Minister knew nothing of this. As we know, had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such an action.
Ethics November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as identified in the reports the member is referencing, the subjects of this investigation are both Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy.
Business of Supply November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier question and comment, it is unlikely that will agree with many of the things the hon. member has had to say.
However, I cannot help but comment on the member for Malpeque and how odd it was to have the Liberals put him up to talk about ethics in government and ethics in expenses. This is coming from the Liberal member for Malpeque, who claimed thousands of dollars in expenses for a house he said he owned, but actually did not. He was being cheered by the member for Vancouver Centre, who is guilty of elections act charges. He is sitting next to the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who is guilty of elections act charges. My gosh, how funny it is to have that ethical standard by the Liberal Party.
I wonder if the member opposite might comment on something. As I said, we are not going to agree on a lot of things. I wonder if he would agree with me that the fact that the Liberal Party refused to allow its leader to speak on this issue is an indictment of the fact that it does not trust him to speak not only on this issue, but on any issue. Would he, in essence, agree that the Liberal leader is in way over his head not only this, but on just about every topic that matters to Canadians?
Business of Supply November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, wow, she is really vociferous about it right now. I think we have touched a nerve with the Liberal Party with respect to people not talking, because I highlighted the fact that their own leader does not seem to ever want to talk. He seems to have a muzzle. In fact, he is not even allowed to talk about policy until 2015.
The only time he has talked about policy, he talked about legalizing marijuana. He has talked about getting rid of minimum mandatory sentences for the most heinous of crimes. When he was asked which form of government he admires most, what came out of his mouth? It was that he admires a dictatorship. Whoops, he did not mean that one.
It goes on and on. The Liberals are so terrified of their leader that on what they claim to be their most important motion, they do not even let him speak in the House about it.
We have obviously touched a nerve with the Liberals today, because again their leader is terrified to speak—
Business of Supply November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is odd hearing the member for Vancouver Centre talk about reading documents. She must have read the Canada Elections Act before she decided to break the rules with respect to her leadership expense debts, which she has not paid back.
Business of Supply November 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He started off talking about how upset he was, how when he was in government he did not like the course of debate, and he thought we could elevate the debate. Then he goes on in his speech. He talked about four individuals and coins them, in his attempt to elevate the debate, the “fraud squad”. These are people, of course, who have not been accused of anything and who are not the subject of any investigation.
He talked earlier on in his speech about how we should be more respectful of each other. The Prime Minister has said that he did not know. The RCMP documents on page 72 outlined that the RCMP do not have any evidence that the Prime Minister knew anything about this. The member does not accept this at face value. The Prime Minister said he expected more from his staff. The Liberals do not accept that at face value. Nigel Wright has said that he did not bring the Prime Minister into his confidence on this. They do not accept that at face value.
As we go on and on in the report, every time there is something that shows that this Prime Minister worked with, co-operated with and assisted the RCMP, the Liberals never accept it at face value.
My question, ultimately, to the member is this. If it is such a priority for the Liberals, why is it that day in and day out their leader sits on his hands and does not make this a priority? Why is he not in the House? Why is he sitting in his place in the House not directly making the case for this?