House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was human.

Topics

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the government and the minister have had 12 years to complete these reviews. Their time is up.

For the second example, despite the misuse of money at the Mint and Technology Partnerships Canada, the Prime Minister is still negotiating a severance package with David Dingwall, this in spite of the fact that not a single expert has come forward to say that there is an entitlement to severance when one quits a job.

I ask the Prime Minister, why is it that Liberal insiders continue to get generous severance packages even when they are not entitled to them?

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Markham—Unionville
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, the government will pay Mr. Dingwall only what legal counsel advises us that we must. There is currently an independent audit re-examining his expenses. I am pleased to inform the House that the results of the audit will be released by Wednesday of this week.

Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to pay severance to David Dingwall, he should be able to stand up and defend it himself.

In a third example, a newly released audit of travel expenses at the federal fisheries department has uncovered yet more horror stories. Unauthorized claims, vacations on the public dollar and luxury flight bookings are only some of the examples.

Why can the Prime Minister not get a grip on the pervasive misuse of tax dollars throughout his government?

Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, in fact this audit was initiated proactively by my department to improve its management of hospitality and travel. In fact, the department has lowered its expenses in this area of travel and hospitality by almost 20% over the past three years.

This audit is valuable. It shows we have more work to do, but it is under way.

Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, the recent audit of DFO travel and hospitality files has uncovered a litany of abuses involving the expenditures of taxpayers' money. Despite the examples of atrocious abuse that were provided, no individuals are being disciplined or investigated.

Will the minister explain why he continues the Liberal policy of ignoring scandals even though this one happened on the present Prime Minister's watch?

Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is wrong. The first thing he should know, in fact, is that this report covers a period that ended on March 31, 2004, when this administration had been here for only three or four months. More important, let me assure my hon. colleague that where appropriate and required, moneys will be recovered and disciplinary action will be taken.

Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, let me ask a more timely question, then. How can the minister explain his department spending $42 million on travel and hospitality while Coast Guard boats were tied up to wharves around this country because they could not afford fuel?

Fisheries and Oceans
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which recently met in St. John's and summoned Mr. Henry Lear from our science department here in Ottawa to appear before it. Is the hon. member saying this kind of travel that he asked for is inappropriate?

Child Care
Oral Questions

October 17th, 2005 / 2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, regarding the child care funding agreement, the Prime Minister promised during the heat of an election campaign that Quebec would receive its share of funding with no strings attached. But in an interview, he just said the exact opposite, namely that Quebec would have to account.

How can the Prime Minister justify so blatantly failing to keep his word? Can he explain the discrepancy between what he promised during the last election campaign and what he said just a few days ago?

Child Care
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, first, the Government of Quebec is accountable to its people. All we said was that the provinces would be accountable to their people, as Quebec already is.

Child Care
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, following the Prime Minister's logic, day care centres are of national interest because immigrants and Aboriginal people, among others, attend day care. Immigrants and Aboriginal people attend primary school. Does that make primary school a federal jurisdiction? Some of them get treated in hospitals. Does that make hospitals a federal jurisdiction? Perhaps this is something he does not know, but there are even some living in municipalities. Does that make municipalities a federal jurisdiction?

Does the Prime Minister realize that his logic is absolutely preposterous?

Child Care
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, no one said that child care centres were a federal jurisdiction. We are familiar with the different jurisdictions and we respect them.

Is the hon. member suggesting that our children are not of national interest? They are. They fall under provincial jurisdiction, yet are national interest.

Municipalities
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is another area regarding which the Prime Minister really did not keep his word, and I am referring to municipalities. Just before the last election, on June 18, 2004, he said he had no intention of interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

How could the Prime Minister allow himself, just before the election, to make such a statement to please voters when, after the election, we are finding out in a document obtained by La Presse , that Ottawa wants to hold summits directly with municipalities? Is the Prime Minister not ashamed to say one thing before the election and to do the opposite after?

Municipalities
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Don Valley West
Ontario

Liberal

John Godfrey Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)

Mr. Speaker, we have always respected provincial jurisdictions when it comes to municipalities. At the same time, since our cities and communities are the target of our social, environmental and economic efforts, we should work closely with Quebec departments to understand Quebec's priorities at the municipal level and support them in the area of infrastructure, among others.

Municipalities
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to the same document, the government wants to avoid setting up merely a banking machine. It wants to have a say about the infrastructure. It also wants to get recognition and visibility.

Did this government not learn any lessons from the sponsorship scandal, which was a visibility scheme? Now, it intends to set up, through municipalities, its own visibility program, thus reneging once again on a promise made before the election.