Ralph Goodale

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here is just part of the list: Duffy, Wright, Gerstein, Perrin, Hamilton, Woodcock, Byrne, Rogers, Novak, van Hemmen, LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart Olsen, and on it goes: the Prime Minister's most senior entourage, all of them installed by him and accountable only to him, and all of them involved in the Duffy cover-up.

Is it the Prime Minister's testimony that none of these people told him about the corruption unfolding in the PMO, or is that because they knew he could not care less?

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he could not care less, but Canadians care. This is an issue that goes to the heart of government administration, directly touching the PMO.

Nigel Wright told police the Conservative Party was going to pay Duffy's expenses, but only up to about $30,000; $90,000 was far too much. However, Senator Gerstein claims the party was never going to pay anything, period.

Which is it for the government, a question of principle, or a question of cost, and who is lying, Gerstein or Wright?

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein has confirmed publicly that he knew there was a conspiracy in the Prime Minister's Office to pay, wrongfully, more than $90,000 to Mike Duffy. Senator Gerstein meets regularly with the Prime Minister.

With full knowledge that a cover-up was being implemented by the PMO, for three full months, including hush money of $90,000, did Senator Gerstein fail to alert the Prime Minister, and is Senator Gerstein therefore an integral part of the deception organized by Nigel Wright?

[Ethics, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, any delay in the Senate is entirely the responsibility of the Conservative leader in the Senate and the PMO that is pulling his strings.

It stands to Mike Duffy's great discredit that he lied to Canadians about the source of the hush money. It is an even greater discredit if someone in the Prime Minister's Office actually counselled Duffy to tell that lie. That is what he said, that the PMO told him to lie on national television.

Will the Prime Minister make all staff available to testify under oath to contradict Duffy or is Duffy now telling the truth?

[Ethics, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative cover-up began in February. Along the way it involved Wright, van Hemmen, Woodcock, Perrin, Hamilton, Byrne, LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart Olsen, Gerstein, Novak and others. The Prime Minister meets with these people almost every day and somehow he never noticed, they never told him and he never asked about a scheme in their inner sanctum involving potentially illegal conduct. Among these players, who gave the order to sandbag Deloitte's audit and corrupt a Senate proceeding, and is he or she still on the public payroll?

[Ethics, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since February the Prime Minister's senior insiders have been up to their necks in a scheme to cover up the wrongdoing and public embarrassment of Mike Duffy. The government has said that paying $90,000 in hush money was wrong but paying $13,000 in legal fees for negotiating that hush money was okay. There would have to have been an itemized invoice for the services rendered by Duffy's lawyer to show in detail what he did to earn the $13,000. When will the government table that itemized invoice?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply troubled by the Prime Minister's incredible excuses and maybe it is because of the track record. They recall that illegal in-and-out financing scam on the Prime Minister's watch, a police raid, charges laid, a guilty plea, a conviction and the biggest possible fine; then the illegal conduct that cost him a cabinet minister in Labrador; now the charges laid in Peterborough, robocalls, voter suppression, electoral fraud, that deal to get rid of Alan Riddell, and of course, the Prime Minister on tape about an insurance policy for Chuck Cadman. Is there a pattern here?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the last question. Let us see if he will answer this one.

From May 15 to May 19, the Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Nigel Wright. He called him an honourable man showing leadership. He said he was just protecting taxpayers, just helping a dear old friend. Then suddenly Mr. Wright was thrown under the bus with Duffy. What changed?

What new information did the Prime Minister receive in those five days, from Wednesday to Sunday, that transformed Mr. Wright from being a brilliant chief of staff into a base manipulator who had to be fired?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says on February 13 he ordered Mike Duffy to repay his expenses, but from that date until May 15, three full months, we are told the Prime Minister was never briefed on his hand-picked star senator, nor did he ask any questions. During that time, $90,000 in hush money was paid, plus $13,000 in legal fees, a Deloitte audit was subverted, a Senate report was corrupted, and a false story was concocted about a bank mortgage.

When did the Prime Minister first hear that his staff, for which he is accountable, had counselled Mike Duffy to lie?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says—