Brian Pallister

[The Wall, October 3rd, 2005]

Our limousines are chauffeur drivenThe Challenger is near our homeHigh on the hill where we are livingHey Tories, leave those Grits aloneAll in all, it's just another ding in the wall.

The people can't get in our golf clubBut we can have them buy the ballsThey'll clean our shoes and pay the tab thenHey Tories, leave those Grits aloneAll in all, it's just another ding in the wall.

[The Wall, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we don't need no informationWe're in charge of thought controlFine wines with caviar in the back roomHey Tories, leave those Grits aloneAll in all, it's just another ding in the wall—

[David Dingwall, September 30th, 2005]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what is also normal under the government's mismanagement is globe-trotting, golfing, gluttony and gum at taxpayer expense.

This is the Prime Minister's scandal, the Prime Minister's dirty laundry and the Prime Minister's call. He can further hurt the Canadian taxpayers' interests by rewarding, under no reasonable grounds, a crony, or he can stand up for Canadians.

For a change, will he finally stand up and protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers and citizens?

[David Dingwall, September 30th, 2005]

Not to mention that response, Mr. Speaker.

Through access to information we have gathered together, the Conservative Party has documents that verify that there is no severance package obligation on the part of the government toward Mr. Dingwall. In other words, this is the Prime Minister's call. This is at his discretion. He has to decide whether he wants to reward the unbecoming conduct of an old crony or protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers.

I am interested in having someone from the government stand up and tell us which it will be.

[David Dingwall, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying a lot, and nothing, at the same time.

Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to defend, as his colleagues are doing today, the indefensible. The Prime Minister had a choice yesterday: Liberal crony or Canadian taxpayer. He chose Liberal crony. He chose wrong.

The Prime Minister makes these bold pronouncements about improving governance, but they are nothing more than bogus. Now he is planning to add insult to injury by giving David Spendwell a severance package. Why is the Prime Minister giving more money to Dingwall when he should be getting it back?

[David Dingwall, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Prime Minister was saying that he wanted to get to the bottom of all the wrongdoing. Yesterday he was nominating David Dingwall for the Order of Canada. What the heck happened?

It seems he is only a proponent of cleaning things up when he can send the bill to Jean Chrétien, but this happened under his watch. This is his dirty laundry. These lavish expenses should have been stopped by him, and Canadians are mad as hell. When will the government understand that they are not willing to take it any more?

[David Dingwall, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thought former porkmaster general André Ouellet, who spent $2 million of taxpayer money without receipt, was the prince of pork, but the new undisputed king of swining and dining is absolutely David Dingwall.

The Prime Minister seems totally incapable of reining in the profligate spending of he and his colleagues and this is just the lastest in a serious of blatant abuses perpetrated by the government against Canadian taxpayers. Dingwall's spending spree took place under the Prime Minister's watch. When did he know or is he going to use the wilful blindness defence again?

[David Dingwall, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, Liberal patronage appointee David Dingwall spent over three-quarters of a million dollars on numerous lavish dinners, excessive international travel, a free car and a swanky limousine, and let us not forget the exclusive golf club to which taxpayers paid for him to belong.

The Prime Minister cannot defend this unbelievable further episode in the Liberal pork opera that his administration has become. By becoming an apologist for Mr. Dingwall and condoning this misconduct, when will he admit that he is encouraging more of the same?

[Question No. 161, September 26th, 2005]

Can the government provide a list of all requests made by Canada Post to André Ouellet, from September 23, 2004, to the present, that call for Mr. Ouellet to provide information to assist with the Canada Revenue Agency audit, including: ( a ) the form and date of each request; ( b ) the Canada Post employee making the request; and ( c ) if or when a response was received from Mr. Ouellet?

[Question No. 153, September 26th, 2005]

For the years 1994 to 2004, were any contracts awarded by VIA Rail Canada to the following companies: Lafleur Communications, Groupaction, Group Everest, Media I.D.A. Vision Inc., Tremblay Guittet Communications, Gosselin, Vickers and Benson, BCP Group Ltd., Gervais, Gagnon, Covington and Associates, La Groupe Polygone, EKOS and Earnscliffe, and if so, (i) what contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the date of the contracts, (iii) what were the amounts of the contracts, (iv) what were the contracts for, (v) what was the name of the supplier, and (vi) for each contract awarded, was the contract awarded via an open competition or was it sole sourced?