Brian Pallister

[Canada Post, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Deloitte Touche audit revealed that former president André Ouellet spent over $2 million on lavish hospitality and travel. The Prime Minister's inaction since that time speaks volumes about his real commitment to accountability.

The report was delayed until after the election. He did not fire André Ouellet, he actually had to resign. The only action the Prime Minister has taken is to hire his own crony to assume the new chairmanship. If it were any other Canadian but André Ouellet, it would have been different rules.

Why does the government have two sets of rules, one for Liberals and one for everyone else?

[Canada Post, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ouellet spent $2 million on entertainment in just five years. That is about $1,500 for every working day and the minister's actions are not adequate. He says there is an audit underway, but it will not be a value for money audit. It will not be made public. Why not? Because the minister is in a position of conflict.

The fact is that the Minister of National Revenue is also the minister in charge of Canada Post. How can he pretend to be objective when he is both the auditor and the audited? How can he pretend to be objective when he is auditing himself?

[Canada Post, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, since when does a minister investigate himself? Is there not some lack of transparency if the minister responsible for National Revenue and Canada Post investigate the reckless spending of André Ouellet? That is a bit like having taxpayers verify their own income tax returns.

When will the minister responsible order a public inquiry into this?

[Canada Post, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the only words that are without foundation are the words of the Prime Minister and the promises he made before the election to be open to Canadians.

The Prime Minister had the Deloitte & Touche interim report. He knows it. He was aware of it before the election. He had a choice to make at that time. He could release it as he promised he would do, or he could hide it and break his promise to Canadians. That is the choice he made.

I have asked the Prime Minister to be open and transparent and I will give him another chance to do that. Before he goes off on his globe trotting journey around the world, maybe he would like to explain to Canadians why he chose--

[Canada Post, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will remember his words from before the election when he said that every piece of information and every fact will be made available to the public as quickly as possible. Well, the facts are these: The Deloitte & Touche audit of Canada Post was given to the Prime Minister before the election was called. He knew it had harmful information. The Prime Minister decided to delay its release until after the election.

I ask the Prime Minister today, would he now explain the contradiction between his words and his deeds?

[Canada Post, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, due diligence only when caught.

The fact is that the Prime Minister was given the Deloitte & Touche audit prior to the election, but he chose not to release it. Why not? Former revenue minister Stan Keyes had the answer. He said that was just too sensitive for politicians to deal with. He meant Liberal politicians. The fact is the Prime Minister delayed the truth and in so doing he hid the truth.

Will the Prime Minister admit to the House today that not only does he not want to get to the truth; he cannot handle the truth?

[Canada Post, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Deloitte & Touche Canada Post audit screamed Liberal corruption. It found President André Ouellet directed contracts to Liberal friendly firms. He ran up more than $2 million in expenses without receipts and skirted hiring rules to push for jobs for Liberal friends and family members.

The report was pure political dynamite. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why this scandalous report was not made public prior to the election?

[Government Appointments, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, forget Burger King, the Prime Minister's office is the new home of the whopper in Canada. Listen to the Prime Minister's words,“The best proof of what I am going to do in the future is what I have done in the past”. I hope Canadians look at that record.

What has he done? He shut down the sponsorship inquiry, invoked closure after six days, brainless photo ops, attack ads, parachuted candidates, patronage appointments, pork barrel politics, no issues, lots of fluff and lots of hype.

Maybe Burger King is not worried. Where is the beef with the government?

[Government Appointments, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, listen to the words of the Prime Minister in March:

No longer will the key to Ottawa be who do you know. We are going to condemn to history the practice and the politics of cronyism.

Good words, but let us look at the deeds. The Prime Minister appoints the member for Brampton Centre, special advisor on the Middle East, the member for Vancouver--Kingsway, special advisor on trade and the member for Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, lieutenant governor of Manitoba.

Perhaps he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made this promise. Could I ask the government--

[Gasoline Prices, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bono might not mind getting used by the government but Canadian taxpayers are sick and tired of it.

The government seems incapable of understanding the impact that it has on individual Canadians. Consider the impact that high fuel taxes are having on farm families impacted by the BSE crisis. It is a big cost. A big portion of their inputs is gasoline taxes and fuel taxes. Half of that is the taxes they pay to the government.

Why can the government not begin to see Canadians as people with real problems and real challenges instead of just as a source of revenue?