Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2005

David Dingwall

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously did not hear my question. I am asking him to prove his prudence with André Ouellet.

The minister tries to spin this as normal. This is not normal. David Dingwall resigned. This is not standard. If it is not negotiated in our agreement, tough luck. It is not fair. David Dingwall jumped out of the Liberal patronage plane and Canadians do not deserve to pay for a golden parachute. In fact, they would rather see him land without a parachute.

Are these people so far up the ivory tower that they can no longer see the ground where Canadians live, work and pay taxes?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I now have said three times, that the government will pay to Mr. Dingwall a severance that is the minimum required by law. On this side of the House we believe in rule of law. We believe in a rules based system. My colleague at the Treasury Board has been working to improve those rules and has had great success. Mr. Dingwall will receive the minimum that is required by law.

Foreign Affairs

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs described as harmful a bill sponsored by the Bloc Québécois, requiring Ottawa to consult with Quebec and the provinces before negotiating and concluding international treaties affecting their jurisdictions. He even urged Conservative and NDP members to vote against this legislation.

I am asking the Prime Minister to explain to us how consulting Quebec and the provinces on issues that come under their jurisdictions can be harmful.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the Bloc's bill went a lot further than what has been said here. It was not just a question of consulting Quebec: the bill required a vote in Parliament for the signing of any international treaty.

We should keep an open mind. We must ensure that Parliament is properly consulted on these issues. However, the executive branch must preserve its responsibility regarding international treaties.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I get it right, it is harmful to have this House vote on treaties that the government signs. What a fine vision of democracy.

My question primarily has to do with this: the term “consultation” is expressly used in the bill. Is the minister telling us that “consultation” is synonym with “veto right”? I would like an explanation on this.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would ask the Bloc leader to respect Parliament. The latter voted against this bill. It took this stand in a very public fashion.

Also, if there is a federation in which the provinces are extremely well treated as relates to international treaties, it is definitely in ours, in the Canadian system. No province is forced to implement an international treaty in its jurisdictions if it does not wish to do so. In this respect, ours is a very decentralized federation.

I would also ask the Bloc leader not to distort my comments. According to him, I said it is Parliament that is harmful. On the contrary, I said that we have to work with Parliament regarding this issue. What is harmful is what is being said on—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just before the last election, in a speech on foreign affairs delivered on May 17, 2004, in Laval, the Prime Minister said about Quebec, “It must be able to speak out on the major issues that affect it! The door must be wide open to Quebec—no ifs, ands or buts. And it will be!”

How can the Prime Minister reconcile these remarks made before the last election to woe Quebec voters in Laval and the actions of his minister, who tried to convince other members of this House that it would be harmful to consult Quebec?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the task my hon. colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and myself were assigned by the Prime Minister is precisely to implement the vision the Prime Minister has set out.

I will take the issue of cultural diversity as an example. I noted that our colleague at Canadian Heritage had done an outstanding job together with the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec had an opportunity to speak out, as part of the Canadian delegation, at the UNESCO conference in Shanghai. That is consistent with the commitment made by the Prime Minister. Canada speaks with a single voice, and we are totally prepared to include in this voice all of this vast country of ours, which has many things to say.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this country is so vast and complex that the minister himself is unable to follow the Prime Minister's directions. That is the reality.

In international affairs, in spite of all we have been told about asymmetrical federalism, of the commitments made by the Prime Minister to Quebec and his remark about the door being wide open, that fact stands.

How can the Prime Minister explain that his speeches are used by his Minister of Foreign Affairs to convince the members of this House and federal parties that it is harmful to consult Quebec in areas under its jurisdiction? Actions and words do not jibe.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, last week, we witnessed the Bloc's ineffectiveness. It is completely unable to do constructive work and improve the federation. It has claimed to want to improve how our federation works. Its true colours are showing, however. The Bloc Québécois is a party that is completely unable to work constructively toward improving the Canadian federation. As an opposition party, it has been ineffective. That is what is bothering it right now.

Pensions

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, Canadians and workers are concerned about the security of their pensions. Workers are wondering whether their pensions are going to be secure and be there for them, but the government does not care much. Last spring it flatly refused a proposal in the budget negotiations to protect workers' pensions. Now we hear the governor of the Bank of Canada suggesting that the companies that are “stuck” with defined pension plans should get out of them.

When David Dodge and the big enterprises begin to speak, we know the Prime Minister is going to be listening. What guarantees can he give us today to ensure it is not going to be open season on pensions?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister referred to earlier, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the government's record. We have raised RRSP limits. We have removed restrictions on global investments. We are increasing the GIS. We are removing 240,000 seniors from the tax rolls altogether. We have rendered the Canada pension plan actuarially sound for 75 years. We have indexed the entire tax system and the social security system to protect senior citizens.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not address my question at all. I am talking about people with pension plans who find that they can lose their pensions when there is a bankruptcy. Right now, banks and other creditors stand in front of the workers who created the value in the company and those pensions represent their deferred wages. The government cares more about ensuring David Dingwall gets his pension and severance pay taken care of than caring about people whose pensions are at risk.

Why should we trust the government when it comes to pensions when it flatly refused to negotiate protection last spring?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman may know, notwithstanding the discussions of last spring, the government already has a consultation process underway, specifically focused on defined benefit pension plans and how we can ensure their long term and viability. That is already up and running, without the suggestions that the hon. gentleman has made.

Technology Partnerships Canada

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall received a kickback of at least $350,000 as a reward for securing a Technology Partnerships Canada grant for a biotechnology company, despite the fact that kickbacks are against the guidelines. The company, Bioniche, is considering going after Mr. Dingwall to recover its success fee, but the government refuses to go after Dingwall and is instead offering him a golden handshake.

Why is the government not putting taxpayer money first? Why will the industry minister not force David Dingwall to pay back his contingency fee?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are recovering all the money from Bioniche. It will deal with Mr. Dingwall on the recovery of those funds.

The use of the language “kickback” is an affront to civilized debate in the House. It suggests illegality. It is illegal to be an unregistered lobbyist. It is not illegal to receive a contingency fee. It is against government policy. It was etched into contracts with companies. Those contracts were breached and we have corrected those breaches.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may not like the language but that is the truth. It is against Technology Partnerships Canada's own guidelines to receive contingency fees. These companies have to sign it upfront knowingly and are giving contingency fees. That is wrong. It is against the government's own guidelines.

The fact is David Dingwall is not alone. Up to 15 lobbyists may have received kickbacks for securing TPC grants. The industry minister has admitted that Dingwall is guilty and this problem is growing. Why is the industry minister refusing to go after the lobbyists who have received these kickbacks and make them repay the money they have defrauded from Canadian taxpayers?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, disgusting maliciousness is what it is. There were breaches of contracts entered into by companies. We are correcting those breaches. Those companies have recourse to lobbyists. Wherever a lobbyist is not registered, it is being referred either to the RCMP or the registrar of lobbyists. We are correcting the breaches. All they are doing is muckraking because that is all they know how to do.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Raymond Chabot reviewed 33 randomly selected companies that had received funding under the TPC program. Eleven have violated the rules to the tune of $2.4 million. The minister was advised of this on September 16.

In order to lend credibility to his fight against corruption, when will the minister make public the names of these 11 companies? Is Mr. Dingwall involved?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to give information to the House with respect to the audits being undertaken under the old TPC program. I am disclosing the information as we are able.

There are privacy laws in the country. There are access to information laws in the country. I am observing those laws. I am working with the companies. As soon as we have factual information that could be put on the table, I am presenting it to Parliament.

Again, it is a vicious guttersnipe over there.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is a smokescreen. The fact is last election day the previous industry minister was informed that four companies violated the rules by making illegal payments from TPC. Those names were made public.

On September 16 the minister was informed that 11 companies violated the rules by making $2.4 million in illegal payments, yet he refuses to make these 11 public. The TPC lobbyists' list reads like the who's who of the Liberal Party, but even that list is unreliable since Liberals like David Dingwall did not even bother to register.

When will this minister release the 11 names and the illegal amounts involved?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as he crawls through the gutter alleging illegal payments, these are breaches of contracts. They are not illegal payments, they are breaches of contracts. They are being corrected and the money recovered.

Foreign Affairs

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-260, presented by the Bloc Québécois, called for major international treaties to be submitted to the House for review before ratification by the government. After being pressured by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, even the NDP and the Conservatives refused to give Parliament this authority.

How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs say he is attuned to the voice of Quebec, when he seizes the first opportunity to convince the Conservatives and the NDP to reject a bill whose purpose is to submit major treaties to the House for approval? Why reject greater democracy? Why reject greater transparency?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament voted on this bill without any constraints. Parliament has spoken.

I have said many times that what the Bloc Québécois wanted was harmful and I have said that Canada will continue to have one voice. The Bloc said all sorts of things to other parliamentarians. What I am saying is that, truth be told, the bill that Parliament rejected gave veto power to the provinces and would have sometimes prevented us from moving forward when certain negotiations need to move quickly. The Bloc has once again shown us that it does not have what it takes, and I—