Brian Pallister

[David Dingwall, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they are both fantasies, but I like Harry Potter better.

Why do this minister and this government continue to try to defend the indefensible? Holy sinking ships.

We see it. Canadians see it. Even Liberal members see it now. The member for Whitby—Oshawa says “it destroys our credibility”. The labour minister says, “I'm ticked off...Give me a break. This is ridiculous”.

That is right. We agree and so do the members on the other side of the House, so why does this Prime Minister not give us all a break, say yes to Canadians, yes to the opposition's demands, yes to his own colleagues, and just say no to David Dingwall?

[David Dingwall, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has failed to produce a single shred of evidence for a Dingwall payoff. There is no contract, no law and no legal brief, and yet he continues to persuade Canadians that there is a legal obligation there.

Let me quote the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. It has an online Q and A pamphlet advising Canadians of their rights on termination. It asks, does this mean that an employee who quits or otherwise terminates his or her own employment is entitled to severance? The answer is no.

Let me ask the human resources minister to assure the House that she will brief the Prime Minister on this issue.

[Liberal Government Policies, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, these are the top 10 Dingwall facts.

Number 10, when the Prime Minister succeeded Jean Chrétien, it was out with the old and in with the old.

Number nine, the Prime Minister is so far up the ivory tower he cannot see the common Canadian any longer.

Number eight, the Prime Minister looks funny defending the indefensible.

Number seven, Liberals believe that ordinary Canadians should not get severance, but Liberals should.

Number six, the Prime Minister's real spending priorities are globe trotting, golf, gluttony and gum.

Number five, when the Prime Minister has a choice, he chooses cronies over Canadians.

Number four, taxpayers should pay hush money to Liberals or else they will sue.

Number three, there are two sets of rules, one for Liberals and another for the rest of us.

Number two, to our Prime Minister this is just another ding in the wall.

And the number one Dingwall fact, Liberals believe they can get their money for nothing and their Chiclets for free.

[David Dingwall, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only reason he has any faith in the rules is he is making them up as he goes along.

Alfonso Gagliano did not get severance and look what happened. He sang like a canary. The Mint minister said yesterday he is afraid of a lengthy legal battle and he said it again today. It is a bit odd, don't you think, afraid of a lawsuit from somebody who quit. The government has changed its tune every day on this issue and it shows it has cut a deal with David Dingwall.

Why does the Prime Minister not finally come clean and tell working Canadians just for once why their tax dollars are being used for hush money for his party?

[David Dingwall, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are two sets of rules, one for Liberals and one for Canadians.

The Royal Canadian Mint Act makes no mention of severance pay whatsoever. The Privy Council rules mention no payoffs for quitters. The Financial Administration Act indicates that severance arrangements are not warranted. Dingwall's contract with the Mint says nothing about severance. To top it off, there is the ridiculous assertion that we should fear a lawsuit from David Dingwall because he quit his contract two years early in shame for spending $750,000 last year. Table the legal opinion.

[David Dingwall, October 4th, 2005]

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 Dingwall, October 4th, 2005]

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—

[Statements by Members--Speaker's Ruling, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I totally accept your ruling, although in this dour and dismal place I think it would be a true sad thing for us not to have the presence of music on a regular basis. In fact, it might increase the degree of affinity among the members of this House and the joy that we should experience in representing the people of Canada if we sang more and yelled less.

[David Dingwall, October 3rd, 2005]

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?

[David Dingwall, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, how is that working with André Ouellet? It is a year later and there is not a dollar back to taxpayers.

David Dingwall has already gotten money for nothing and his Chiclets for free. Now the Prime Minister is offering Dingwall a fat severance as a final perk for his short stint at the Mint.

The fact of the matter is that we have accessed his remunerations agreement. We know it clearly establishes that there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of the government. This is purely discretionary. Will the Prime Minister admit that this severance package is nothing but a pathetic Liberal damage control deal?