Dinging Dingwall, Lobbyists' Privacy, Coffin's "Punishment", Property Rights

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 ORAL QUESTIONS

Technology Partnerships Canada

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has been admitted that, besides his extravagant spending, David Dingwall was involved in unregistered lobbying and in instances of breach of contract to the tune of $350,000.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why, instead of calling in the RCMP and instead of trying to go after Mr. Dingwall for the money, he is praising him here in the House and trying to negotiate a golden parachute for him? [. . . . ]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): [. . . . ] Would the Prime Minister explain? We know David Dingwall received $350,000 he should not have received. Why, instead of trying to recover that money, is the government actually contemplating giving him perhaps up to half a million dollars more? [. . . . ]

¸ (1420)


Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the severance package, the government lawyers have been asked to advise the government on what is the minimum separation package that the government can pay given the relevant laws and given the policy framework.

I can list the relevant laws if the members will listen. They are the Royal Canadian Mint Act, the Financial Administration Act, and the crown corporation general regulations.

Note: the "laws" excuse has been refuted in several articles, one of which is in the National Post, Oct. 6, 05

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know that a couple of days ago in the House this minister liked to quote the common law. There is no common law saying the government has to pay severance to someone who voluntarily quits. That may be the common practice of the Liberal Party, but it is not the common law.

Once again, given that there is no requirement to pay severance to someone who quits voluntarily, and given that Mr. Dingwall received hundreds of thousands of dollars he should not have received, why is the Prime Minister contemplating giving him any money at all?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition ought to take some legal advice, because according to the government's legal advice, his facts of the law are wrong. Indeed, it is the case that without a mutually agreed separation package, even when somebody resigns voluntarily there is most definitely the risk of a long and expensive lawsuit.

[Translation]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall hired Chuck Guité, the man behind the sponsorship scandal. He has broken the rules governing lobbyists and the awarding of contracts for his own personal gain. He ran up quite a few expenses on his expense account at the Royal Mint.

Does the Prime Minister really think that buying David Dingwall is the way to put an end to corruption?

Search: The use of Challenger jets




Is it the Speaker's job to protect Paul Martin from touchy questions?

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 David Dingwall

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the waiting list for leadership gets longer all the time.

When the Prime Minister replaced Jean Chrétien, it was out with the old and in with the old. Canadians were hopeful that we would have Mr. Clean but what we have instead is Sergeant Schultz, “I know nothing, I see nothing”. That wilful ignorance is costing Canadian taxpayers.

The Privy Council's own rules stipulate that appointees are entitled to one week's pay for each completed year of service, but that is only for terminations not for spendthrift quitters.

David Dingwall does not deserve one penny. Will the Prime Minister admit—


The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.



Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): [. . . . ]

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he is for a rules based system but if there is one thing David Dingwall has taught the people of Canada, it is that the government believes in two different sets of rules: one for Liberal patronage appointees and one for everybody else.

When working Canadians quit their jobs there is no golden parachute for them. In fact, there is no unemployment insurance either. When the minister rules that Dingwall's golf club memberships are acceptable while Revenue Canada's own rules say that they are not, then there is a problem of a double standard that exists here.

Could the minister, who is also the revenue minister, tell us whose rules apply to Dingwall, his or his? [. . . . ]

Lobbyists Being Investigated

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is taxpayer money. The government should be showing some leadership instead of passing the buck to the companies.

We further learned today that six lobbyists connected to this scandal have been referred to the lobbyists registrar for further investigation. My question for the industry minister is simple. Has the RCMP been called in to investigate any of these lobbyists and when will taxpayers finally get their money back?

¸ (1435)

Hiding behind the "the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act."

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 11 companies have reportedly paid lobbyists commissions for grants obtained under the Technology Partnerships Canada program, a kickback for successfully securing grants, which is prohibited.

My question to the minister is very simple. Could he table before this House the list of companies at fault and the names of the lobbyists, registered or not, involved in this affair?

[English]


Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): . . . . when we have completed the audits and we have satisfied the requirements of the privacy laws . . . . the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. [. . . . ]

---

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 Liberals' Challenger jets cost $11,000 an hour to operate

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the Liberals have been hiding the real cost of their flying limousines from Canadian taxpayers, claiming that the luxury jets cost only $2,000 an hour when in fact these jets cost $11,000 an hour to operate.

On top of that, Liberal ministers have abused their luxury jets dozens of times, spending over $1 million on unnecessary flights, rather than rubbing shoulders with average Canadians on much cheaper commercial aircraft.

Is all of this not just more proof of the culture of Liberal arrogance and waste?

¸ (1440)

---

Volpe's Pizza

Citizenship and Immigration -&- Liberal Minister Volpe's $138 pizza dinner

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the pizza flyers at our doors, two for one pizza, $19.99 pizza, pizza with chicken wings, and the list goes on, but I have never heard of a $138 pizza like the immigration minister spent for him and a guest on July 4 at Camarra Pizzeria in Toronto. I have heard of extra toppings, but this is ridiculous.

---

Coffin's "Punishment" vs that of a Young Shoplifter

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 -- CPC Bill C-11

Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): . . . .

I would like to complete my speech on Bill C-11. Before the interruption, I was talking about the fact that among Canadians there is an increasing lack of trust in their politicians and their government. I think Bill C-11 at least partially addresses this. We must first and foremost change the whole culture, the whole way of thinking. That is what is important here. Hopefully, with people knowing that somebody else can blow the whistle on them, it will mean that we will have many fewer instances of people abusing the public trust.

I would like to point out that one of the reasons for this is that even under the present law when people are found out and found guilty, the penalties seem to be quite disparate from what other Canadians face. I want to share with members an observation made to me by the editor of the Sherwood Park News, which I think is very appropriate here.

She and I were talking about the sentence Paul Coffin got for stealing, which he admitted. He confessed to it. He stole millions of dollars from the Canadian people. His penalty is that he has to give speeches on ethics, but he must be finished by nine o'clock. The editor of the Sherwood Park News said she has covered the local court there a lot and has seen way more stringent penalties for young people who have been picked up for shoplifting in the local mall. So here we have one person who is picked up for shoplifting a $50 or a $100 item and who gets a more stringent penalty than somebody who steals from the taxpayers in the amount of millions of dollars. This needs to be corrected.

I suppose we could say that our case is with the judge who handed down that particular sentence, but it is also with the government of the day. This Liberal government has set up a culture in which this type of thing is tolerated. It must come to an end. This must be stopped. Otherwise, we are going to land up with even less trust and respect for government, for Parliament and for our institutions in this country. It should not surprise us that people increasingly object to having to pay their income taxes when there is so much misuse and abuse. . . . .

¹ (1510)

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member correctly pointed to several instances of Liberal theft, Liberal fraud, Liberal corruption and Liberal crime. These instances are becoming so frequent that they scarcely even make news any more.

We had a Liberal government that systematically stole over $100 million over the period of seven years, shovelling much of it back into Liberal Party coffers, a criminal conspiracy in which up to 600 different individuals are implicated. . . .

Once again, there was a criminal conspiracy involving 600 people over a seven year period and not a single person has gone to jail. Two and a half years after we learned about this massive criminal Liberal conspiracy, not one person has gone to jail. An individual is caught red-handed stealing $1.5 million and he does not receive a jail sentence. Only in the Liberal wonderland can such a thing occur. That member cannot obstruct that truth from coming out in this House or anywhere else. [. . . . ]

---

Property Rights

Hansard Oct. 4, 05 -- Property rights (1740)

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion No. 227 put forward by my colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville.

Private ownership of property and the development of that property is the basis of our national economic growth and prosperity and yet the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 did not include property rights.

Property rights should include the right to buy, maintain, sell, bequeath or enjoy one's properties. As a Canadian citizen, one's right to own property is not guaranteed. It sounds outrageous but it is entirely true. The right to own property was intentionally left out of the Charter of Rights. Consequently, today Canadians can have their property expropriated by the government and receive nothing in return. [. . . . ]

There is more information if you link.

Search:

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC):
the greenbelt legislation
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):
Bill C-279, which seeks to entrench property rights in a meaningful form in Canadian law.
Canada-U.S. Border

---