House of Commons Hansard #131 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was protection.

Topics

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the parliamentary session, the list of scandals related to the squandering of public funds has been growing and illustrates the laxity that reigns within the public administration. After the unjustified expenses of David Dingwall, now we learn that some ministers have been misusing the government's Challenger jets.

With one scandal after another, how does the Prime Minister have the nerve to tell us he learned any lessons from the sponsorship scandal?

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the—

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

The Speaker

It may be clear that the Prime Minister is very welcome, but he does have the floor.

He needs to answer the question of the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We must have order to hear him.

The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Martin Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, we understand that Canadians demand that the Challengers be used appropriately. That is why there are very clear rules in place.

The use of Challenger jets has to be justified. These planes can be used only for government-related functions and only when commercial options are not available. That is the current policy. It is respected and it must be respected.

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the policy has not been respected and that the rules have not been followed.

Is this not an old Liberal habit to say that the rules have been respected? Is this not the same speech that was used in connection with the sponsorships, instead of acknowledging the facts and taking action? Has it not become routine for the government to break the rules and then unapologetically plead ignorance? Is that not the Liberal way?

Public FundsOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister clearly said, we have specific rules. We have a very important asset for the country, namely four planes available for ministers and senior public officials and, from time to time, the opposition and other public figures to travel across this large country.

These planes are used in keeping with certain conditions and clear rules, which are always respected in the opinion of the Prime Minister's Office and in my opinion. Some may think otherwise, but I can assure the House and the hon. member that we have rules and we respect them.

Public FundsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, in each of the scandals affecting this government, the ministers always use the same defence: Treasury Board rules have been applied.

How could this reassure us, when we recall that, at the time of the sponsorship scandal, with the theft of tens of millions of dollars, the government answered all of our questions by saying that Treasury Board rules had been complied with?

Public FundsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking members of this House to break Treasury Board rules. I assure hon. members that the PMO and my office work in close conjunction to ensure that these aircraft are not used just any old time. They are a last resort solution, for use solely on government business when commercial options do not allow us to fulfill our responsibilities properly.

That is our policy, a good policy, good for this country and for the efficiency of our government.

Public FundsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, when the sponsorship scandal first broke, Alfonso Gagliano answered one of our questions, on May 31, 2000, as follows, “Mr. Speaker, immediately upon being appointed minister responsible for Quebec, I gave very clear directives to the CIO to the effect that it had to comply with Treasury Board policies.” We know what happened next.

How can we feel reassured when we know how nonchalantly the government hides behind Treasury Board rules in order to justify the worst abuses of this administration?

Public FundsOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, there is an article in today's newspaper advancing the opinion of an individual who has reviewed certain flights.

First of all, I think we have to know what methodology was used, and second we need to know details of the individual cases.

I can assure the House, all hon. members—including those who have used the Challengers—and the other public servants, such as Chief Electoral Officer Kingsley, who is headed for Haiti this very day, that these aircraft are used solely for government purposes.

HealthOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health said that the government had already responded to the Chaoulli decision on privatization of health care, before the decision was made. Utter nonsense.

The Prime Minister gave $41 billion away without a single string attached and pretends this is somehow a response to the Supreme Court decision to privatize health care.

How can this be the fight of his life if he is not willing to stand up and take action against the Chaoulli decision that is threatening our health care system today?

HealthOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should simply take a look at what we did in that federal-provincial understanding in which $41 billion was transferred. Not only did that money go to provide more doctors, health care providers and nurses, which is so necessary if we are going to reduce wait times, that we specifically set out the need to reduce wait times in a wide range of areas from cancer, to heart, to cataracts, to hip replacement.

The fact is that the program is working. We also appointed Dr. Postl from the province of Manitoba to work with the federal government and the provinces to make sure that those commitments were met. When those commitments are met, then Canadians will have—

HealthOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

HealthOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is why the only thing busier than a private medical clinic these days is the private Liberal jets. Maybe if the Liberals were flying a little more often with the people, they would find out that people are afraid of losing the Canadian health care system.

It was four months ago that the Supreme Court made a decision that challenged our public health care system and yet our Prime Minister is afraid to speak. Why is the Prime Minister afraid to do what Canadians want him to do, which is to stand up and defend our public health care system and do it now instead of dithering on it?

HealthOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Chaoulli decision was about the question of wait times and the length of time it took to get access to decent care. In the last election campaign we made that an important centrepiece. We were the only political party that said that wait times had to be reduced and the only political party that said we had to come together with the provinces and we did that.

As I look at the opposition members in front of me, time and time again they said it was not a problem. Time and time again they refused to defend the public health care system. Well, we will defend the public health care system.

David DingwallOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

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—

David DingwallOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

David DingwallOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Markham—Unionville Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, my advice comes from those Privy Council lawyers. They have been asked to tell us what the minimum amount is that the government must pay given the relevant laws and the policy framework. I have already listed those laws and the policy framework includes the desire to avoid the cost of a long lawsuit. Those are the factors that enter into the consideration to get the minimum amount that the government is required to pay.

David DingwallOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

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?

David DingwallOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Markham—Unionville Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed committed to a system in which not only do we enforce the rules but under the leadership of the Treasury Board president we have been improving the rules in a significant fashion over the past month. The crown corporation governance has been strengthened.

On this specific point, if Pricewaterhouse finds any expenses by Mr. Dingwall that it deems to be inappropriate, then those expenses will be, dollar for dollar, subtracted from any severance package.

Technology Partnerships CanadaOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, at least five companies have been found to be in breach of their Technology Partnerships Canada contracts. In one case, David Dingwall received a payment of $350,000 after successfully lobbying for a government grant.

Does Dingwall have to pay the money back? No. Has the company that hired Dingwall had its government grant revoked? No.

Why is the industry minister not going after David Dingwall and forcing him to pay back the $350,000 he received in violation of the government's own rules?

Technology Partnerships CanadaOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Vancouver Kingsway B.C.

Liberal

David Emerson LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it is getting a little tiresome answering the same questions over and over again.

The government has recourse to the company with which it has a contractual relationship. The company has the opportunity to deal with Mr. Dingwall. It can choose to do that or not to do that. We have dealt with the company with which we can deal.

Technology Partnerships CanadaOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

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?

Technology Partnerships CanadaOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Vancouver Kingsway B.C.

Liberal

David Emerson LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers did get their money back. The reality is that where there was an unregistered lobbyist, we have referred it to the RCMP or to the registrar of lobbyists who can also refer it to the RCMP. That is where there is a legal issue at play here and that has been done.