Peter Kent

[Ethics, January 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, “This situation was a reminder for all of us to be extremely careful about our expenses and about the public trust that we wield.” Those are not my words; those were the high-minded-sounding words of the Prime Minister as he stood in front of his cabinet a couple of years ago, referring to the then health minister and thousands of dollars of inappropriate travel expenses. That minister did the right thing: She repaid Canadians. Why will the Prime Minister not do the right thing, attempt to regain public trust, and repay Canadians?

[Ethics, January 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister did not only violate four important sections of the Conflict of Interest Act, but that the Prime Minister violated his own guidance document for ministers, which he sanctimoniously titled, “Open and Accountable Government”.

An ordinary citizen who accepted substantial illegal gifts would face serious consequences. Why will the Prime Minister not do the right thing and simply repay Canadians for his illegal gift?

[Ethics, January 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, returning to the Ethics Commissioner's report, titled in the Prime Minister's name, the Prime Minister has been found to have broken the law. The Prime Minister accepted an illegal gift. The Prime Minister's illegal trip and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of improperly generated costs made Canadian taxpayers complicit in the laws he broke.

Why will the Prime Minister not simply repay Canadians for his illegal gift?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Transport Canada, since January 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to the backdrops and podiums used by the government for the announcements since January 1, 2017, for each backdrop purchased and for each podium purchased or rented: (a) what was the date of purchase or rental; (b) when was the tender issued for the backdrop or podium; (c) when was the contract signed; (d) when was the backdrop or podium delivered; (e) what was the cost of the backdrop or podium; (f) was there an announcement for which the backdrop or podium was used and, if so, for which ones; (g) which department paid for the backdrop or podium; and (h) when were the backdrops or podiums used, broken down by event and date?

[Ethics, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there have been no answers to questions coming out of the Ethics Commissioner's report.

The commissioner found that among the laws the Prime Minister broke, the Prime Minister received an illegal gift. The taxpayers are also on the hook for the Prime Minister's decision to receive this illegal gift. Will the Prime Minister repay the almost quarter of a million dollars in security, staffing support, per diems, and technology generated by a holiday trip he should never have taken at the taxpayers' expense?

[Ethics, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is an official document, but I will respect your guidance.

The Prime Minister has made a public statement saying that he will not discuss these findings or the wider revelations raised in the commissioner's 66-page report with the House standing committee on ethics. Does the Prime Minister consider himself above the protocols and practices of this House and his accountability as a member, let alone the Prime Minister, to his fellow MPs?

[Ethics, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner released the Trudeau report a week after the House rose in December, finding that he broke the—

[Salaries Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a worthy defence of what we in the official opposition consider this legislation to be: damage control of the Prime Minister's original flawed decision.

Because this amends the Salaries Act, I wonder if he could address the fact that the mistake was made more than two years ago now, and these newly minted ministers will have been paid, in effect, with post-dated cheques until this legislation is actually passed.

[Salaries Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for another speech getting directly to the point. I thank him specifically for pointing out that example of regional economic funding, which was aimed at northern Ontario but went to the minister of everything's riding in southern Ontario.

This is just another element or outcome of the government's decision to strip the regional development ministers across the country, which is proven by the more than $2 billion that was meant to go out the door in infrastructure spending that the government could not get out the door and has had to be profiled for later investment.

I know the speaking time is always limited, but I wonder if my colleague would like to amplify on some of those remarks that he made, criticizing the government for removing the regional ministers.