Brian Pallister

[David Dingwall, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today Judge Gomery highlighted that the author of the sponsorship rules which allowed the government to award contracts to Liberal-friendly firm without breaking the rules was David Dingwall. Right under the Prime Minister's nose, Dingwall then exempted himself from the spending rules at the Mint so he could spend without breaking the rules. So much for doing due diligence. So much for vigilance.

The Prime Minister claims he did not know anything about the sponsorship scandal, but he knew David Dingwall. Now he wants to pay him severance. Why should Canadians pay severance to an architect of the sponsorship scandal?

[Points of Order, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during question period in response to a question, the revenue minister replied along the lines that he felt that some information he was putting on the record would be especially relevant to me because it came from a Saskatoon newspaper, and I believe he used words along the lines that it was very close to my riding.

Of course I love Saskatoon and the great province of Saskatchewan, but just to avoid future confusion, I want to correct the record and state clearly that my riding is in the great province of Manitoba and that I actually reside about 10 hours away from Saskatoon. To make sure that the minister does not touch down his Challenger 10 hours away from his actual destination by mistake, with the permission of the House, I would like to table a hand-drawn map of Manitoba and western Canada that he will be able to reference.

[Canada Post, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, anybody who is interested post-Gomery in determining the level of sincerity of the government when it comes to cleaning things up just has to listen to that minister. When it comes to accountability, they just play dead over there.

Here is another good example. It has been 13 months and the André Ouellet possum audit still has no conclusion. Last year alone, Revenue Canada completed 307,000 audits on regular Canadian taxpayers. Why should 307,000 Canadians be held to account and not one fat cat Liberal?

[David Dingwall, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that David Dingwall is clean, which just shows us what passes for clean with the government. Last week's dingwash audit showed that David Dingwall charged taxpayers for personal flights, personal courier service--and the Treasury Board minister should listen to this as he seems to pretend he is interested in accountability--personal gum and even a personal massage.

Just two weeks ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans fired employees for using tax dollars for personal use. Is paying David Dingwall severance a Liberal double standard?

[David Dingwall, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they should listen to this part.

Even the auditors admit that they could not make any judgment on the appropriateness of the policies. The question is, why not? Because the government's own terms of reference deliberately restricted the auditors to an analysis of Dingwall's spending, while ignoring the cause of that spending, the rules. l

Yesterday, the minister misinformed the House when he said that the terms of reference were on the website. They are not on the website. Why is he hiding them? Will he table them today?

[David Dingwall, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's audits were just a shallow attempt to legitimize David Dingwall's spending and his severance. The auditors admit that--

[David Dingwall, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they still have not released over $100,000 worth of Dingwall's receipts.

The question is: what is the government hiding? Why is the Prime Minister always hiding? Today he is hiding behind accountants. Yesterday he was hiding behind lawyers when it came to Dingwall's severance.

For more than a year we have been asking about André Ouellet and he has been hiding behind tax auditors.

What today's audit reveals is one thing and one thing only. The Prime Minister has no control over crony spending in his government.

If the Prime Minister really believes David Dingwall's spending is legitimate, I invite him to finally come out of hiding, stand up and say so.

[David Dingwall, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from the introductory comments in the dingwash audit today from the auditor. It states, “We have assumed that the policy reflects the best practices”.

Would these be the best practices that allow the Liberal government to pay David Dingwall over $50,000 in car allowances, to claim for chocolate bars, chips and cokes while being paid over $300,000 in salary and benefits, and to break Treasury Board hospitality guidelines 76% of the time?

Will the Prime Minister admit that only in the Liberal government would this be considered best practices?

[David Dingwall, October 25th, 2005]

They are not responsible for the truth, the lawyers are, Mr. Speaker.

The government has still failed to provide the governmentoperations committee with all of David Dingwall's receipts, and yet the whitewash Dingwall audit is due out tomorrow. One cannot audit expenses if one does not have receipts. The government has made about a zillion promises to Canadians that it would clean things up, but it has failed to take action. We all know that promises and press conferences do not stop corruption. Transparency does.

I would like to give the minister the opportunity to assure Canadians. Will he now assure Canadians that he will provide the public with evidence of all of David Dingwall's expenditures tomorrow?

[David Dingwall, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the David Dingwall severance fan club has only one remaining member and it seems to be the revenue minister. The question is why. He knows there is no case to make for severance to be paid. He knows Dingwall exempted himself from the spending rules. He seems to agree that Liberals are still entitled to their entitlements.

Mr. Dingwall and the minister disagree on one thing. Mr. Dingwall testified that he spoke to the revenue minister about his entitlements. The minister has denied it in the House.

Is the minister calling David Dingwall a liar?