House of Commons Hansard #138 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vehicle.

Topics

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should join with Premier Charest in condemning the comments by the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday David Dingwall said he was told to go to the Privy Council Office to seek any severance he believes he is entitled to. The Privy Council Office is under the Prime Minister's direct authority. The Prime Minister has maintained that Mr. Dingwall quit voluntarily. In fact, he says his government urged him to stay.

Why does the Prime Minister not just say no to David Dingwall's demand for more money?

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Markham—Unionville
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, on the morning of September 28 Mr. Dingwall informed me that he was going to resign later that day. The reason he gave was that he thought it would be in the best interests of the Mint and I did not agree.

On the subject of legal obligations, that is a matter for the Privy Council Office lawyers. They are operating under the instructions of the Prime Minister to pay the legal minimum that is required under these circumstances.

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Prime Minister just sits there. David Dingwall is knocking on his door. He holds Canadians' chequebook in his hand. He says David Dingwall quit voluntarily. In fact, he begged David Dingwall to stay and not quit.

Why does he not just say no and say he will not give him any more taxpayers' money?

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Markham—Unionville
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall is not knocking on anybody's door. David Dingwall is doing what is legally appropriate in our system. That is to say, any matter regarding legal obligations is handled by government lawyers in the Privy Council Office who are under instructions from the Prime Minister to pay the legal minimum.

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is putting the sit in democratic deficit.

Let us get this straight. Dingwall quit in disgrace. He did not fulfill his contract. He said he was leaving anyway, but now he is ready to sue us because he is entitled to his entitlements and the Prime Minister seems to agree with that.

For three weeks he and his government have been promoting the idea of paying Dingwall off with severance without providing us a single shred of evidence as to why. Dingwall could not successfully sue unless he had a deal.

Will the Prime Minister admit he did a Dingwall deal?

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Markham—Unionville
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, rather than going through all these doubtful premises and hypotheses, why do we not just stick to the facts? The fact of the matter is, Mr. Dingwall telephoned me on the morning of September 28 and indicated he would resign later that day because he felt it was best for the Mint. I agreed.

He is engaging a lawyer in consultation with government lawyers at Privy Council Office to determine the legal obligations under the instruction of the Prime Minister that the government will pay the legal minimum. Those are the facts.

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, in a recent negotiation the Prime Minister's chief of staff said, “—the PM will say we are not offering and making no offers. And I think that is the narrative we have to stick to it”. More backroom deals. Here we go again.

Here are the facts. First, the revenue minister encourages Dingwall, then the Prime Minister accepts Dingwall's resignation. Then they both try to sell us on severance for Dingwall. Those are the facts.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he knew in advance that his minister had spoken to Dingwall concerning his entitlements?

David Dingwall
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Markham—Unionville
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, only one of those statements made by the hon. member I know to be absolutely false. The idea that I encouraged Mr. Dingwall is false. I can only assume his other statements are equally likely to be false.

I was informed by Mr. Dingwall on the morning that he was going to resign. When he said it was in the interests of the Mint, I did not disagree. That is not encouraging anything. It is accepting a resignation.

Intergovernmental Affairs
Oral Questions

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

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said Quebec-Ottawa relations were as good as ever. Yet his Minister of Transport has said otherwise, accusing Benoît Pelletier, the Quebec Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, of adopting an attitude that poisons Quebec-Ottawa relations.

I would ask the Prime Minister to clarify this: are things going well between his government and the Government of Quebec, or badly? Does he share the opinion of his political lieutenant in Quebec?

Intergovernmental Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, our relationship is fine.

Intergovernmental Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like him to tell us whether he shares the opinion of his political lieutenant.

The Quebec Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Pelletier, made it clear he was speaking on behalf of the Government of Quebec. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister believes his political lieutenant was speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada when he criticized Mr. Pelletier.

Intergovernmental Affairs
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, he speaks on behalf of a government that has concluded the final agreement on the Quebec parental leave program, a government that has signed an agreement on municipalities, a government that has signed an agreement on infrastructure programs, a government that has signed an agreement on older workers. I believe, therefore, that he speaks on behalf of a government that is maintaining good relations with the Charest government.

Child Care
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is full of contradiction. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Social Development are saying that everything is going very well in the negotiations with Quebec on child care, while the Minister of Transport is saying that things are now at a standstill with Quebec's Canadian intergovernmental affairs secretariat.

Can the Minister of Social Development tell us, once and for all, since there is still no agreement with Quebec on child care after 16 months of negotiations, what is the hold up?

Child Care
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development is with his provincial counterparts this very day discussing the various challenges we face throughout the country. He also is in ongoing dialogue with his colleague from Quebec, Carole Théberge.

Child Care
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, minister Béchard has confirmed that Quebec refuses to allow Ottawa to impose conditions. The federal minister says that the Government of Quebec could put the money into its family policy. Is this not a condition imposed by Ottawa and therefore in direct contradiction with the Prime Minister's promise during the election campaign that the transfer would be made with no strings attached?