Ethics  Mr. Speaker, RCMP court filings show that Nigel Wright told the police that the Prime Minister's personal lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, was involved in the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy. Mike Duffy has said that he has emails that show that another PMO lawyer was involved in this scheme.

Remembrance Day  Mr. Speaker, let us fulfill the duty we have to remember at this time of year: remembering those who sacrificed their lives for our country, most of them barely in their prime. They contributed so much; we must not forget them. My grandfather fought in the First World War. He was wounded twice, first at Lenz and again at Passchendaele.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, the government would have us believe that the suspension of Senator Duffy, Senator Wallin and Senator Brazeau puts an end to the scandal hanging over the Prime Minister's head. What is worse, the government is trying to cover up the whole thing and refuses to come clean with Canadians.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Prime Minister. If the government is not engaged in a cover-up, then why is it refusing to release documents that were requested through the ATIP process that we now know exist, thanks to RCMP court filings. Why did Chris Woodcock try to deceive Canadians by writing a phony story about Mike Duffy taking out a Royal Bank loan to pay the $90,000?

Business of Supply  You can take it from me there was.

Veterans  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%.

Veterans  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.

Ethics  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?

Ethics  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?

Ethics  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.

Ethics  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.

Ethics  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?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2  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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2  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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2  Mr. Speaker, several times my hon. colleague mentioned a record to brag about. I want to ask him whether he feels the following is something to brag about. Under the current government, we have added about $160 billion to the national debt. It was very difficult to add to the debt the first two years because the Conservative government inherited massive surpluses from the competent Liberal administration that preceded it.