Odina Desrochers

[Firefighters, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, myself and the people of Quebec and Canada, I rise in this House to ask questions concerning what has been called the David Dingwall case.

Since the publication in the media of Mr. Dingwall's famous expense account that prompted his resignation, we are trying to get at the truth.

Yesterday, Mr. Dingwall was in front of a Commons committee. In his opening statement, he was quick to point out that he managed the crown corporation like a business enterprise. He said that the profits of his business enterprise justified all the money he spent.

Through the questions we asked here in the House, we tried to find out what the crown corporation's internal rules are. Because it is a crown corporation, even though Mr. Dingwall considers it to be a business enterprise. We tried to find out who could authorize the spending of so much money over such a short period. We also asked questions to find out what were Mr. Dingwall's powers under the delegation of financial signing authorities chart.

We are still waiting for answers. Legal opinions and an accounting firm report due next week are being used as excuses to keep us in the dark.

In the meantime, people are filled with dismay. The public is outraged. Mr. Dingwall was blamed during the Gomery inquiry and when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He was considered the one who allegedly authorized the program that became the sponsorship scandal. This same individual, publicly and before committees, continues to say that he was justified in spending the $300,000 for his personal expenses.

Moreover, in the summary that he provided us yesterday, Mr. Dingwall tells us that, contrary to the statements that were made in the House of Commons, all expenses were covered by the economic returns of the corporation, and not paid by taxpayers.

I do not know where Mr. Dingwall gets his money. To my knowledge, all government corporations are governed by Treasury Board. Consequently, public funds have to be invested. I understand that, afterwards, depending on the corporations' success, this money generates what we call economic returns. At that time, we can say that a president gets money from these economic returns. However, he cannot say that this money does not come from taxpayers.

Parliamentarians' credibility is at stake when people such as Mr. Dingwall or other presidents of government corporations appear before the Gomery commission and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It seems that these people, after having rendered services to the Liberal Party and held major positions, believe that they can do anything when they find themselves at the helm of government corporations or foundations.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, who is here tonight, if she can give us more clarification on the measures that we are taking to know exactly where this money came from and the powers that were given to Mr. Dingwall.

[David Dingwall, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister, who wanted to distance himself from the Chrétien-Gagliano legacy, not realize that by continuing to defend Liberal cronies like David Dingwall he is becoming their accomplice?

[David Dingwall, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the president of the Treasury Board and the Minister of National Revenue came to the defence of their friend David Dingwall, the man who managed to offload on the Royal Canadian Mint a bill for $750,000 for miscellaneous expenses related to accommodation and his BMW. Yesterday, the minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint seemed open to the idea of David Dingwall receiving severance pay.

Does the Minister of National Revenue not agree that after living like a king at the Royal Canadian Mint, David Dingwall does not deserve any severance pay?

[David Dingwall, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we asked questions, back then, about Alfonso Gagliano, the government had exactly the same attitude it does now and it gave the same answers: he is beyond reproach, he is a great Canadian.

Given its arrogance with regard to the Dingwall scandal, is the government not showing that it has learned nothing from the sponsorship scandal and that it has no more respect for taxpayers' dollars now than it did back then?

[David Dingwall, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to hear the government pay tribute to David Dingwall after he resigned following revelations in the newspapers yesterday on his administration's laxity.

How can the Prime Minister explain the fact that he supports someone who has resigned as a result of poor administration and who made Chuck Guité responsible for the entire sponsorship program after ensuring the latter was a faithful Liberal?

[Royal Canadian Mint, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall is a former Liberal cabinet minister who was appointed by Jean Chrétien. His former boss, Chairman of the Board Emmanuel Triassi, was appointed by another Liberal, Alfonso Gagliano. Once again we have Liberals abusing public funds and Liberals in charge of supervising other Liberals.

What is the government waiting for to put a stop to this by tightening the rules and demanding that these Liberal cronies behave as responsible managers of public funds?

[Royal Canadian Mint, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are watching a sorry tale unfold involving Liberal cronies appointed by Liberals to head crown corporations behaving like they own the government.

In light of Mr. Dingwall's resignation, what is the government waiting for to hold to account every Liberal crony at the head of a crown corporation earning $300,000 a year and unashamedly abusing public funds?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my Liberal colleague had to say, and he completely forgot a few details. When he said that what the Liberal Party wanted with Bill C-48 was to govern in cooperation with the NDP, it is simply not true.

The Liberals have formed an alliance with the NDP in order to stay in power. They are not interested in governing, they are only interested in staying in power. We have seen all kinds of legislative sleight of hand in the House to put off legislation, to disregard certain situations such as unemployment and the fiscal imbalance. Votes have been bought. That is the Liberals' trademark. They do not want to manage and administer ideas that are not even their own—these are NDP ideas. They have engaged in flagrant opportunism in order to cling to power.

I would not be afraid to go to my riding or Quebec and say how this government is much more attached to being in power than to really governing.

I therefore ask the member, if there was so much openness, why did the government forget the unemployed and ignore the fiscal imbalance, which is the cause of all the socio-economic problems in Quebec? Why did his government not take advantage of Bill C-48 to include these things, which are essential to the Quebec economy? Why?

[Youth and Environment, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week there was a spectacular concert at l'Odyssée primary school in the Saint Nicolas sector of Lévis. Its 416 pupils treated their audience to renditions of a number of compositions by artists known for raising public awareness of environmental questions and of the need for children's rights to be respected in the world.

The performers, the kindergarten and primary students and staff members, interpreted songs by Annie Brocoli, Gilles Vigneault, Yves Duteil and Luc Plamondon, and even by Bruno Lemay, the school cook, who shares their concern for the environment.

The theme of the evening, expertly organized by teachers Alice Desrochers and Josée d'Anjou, was “Sing for a better world”.

Numerous other volunteers, musicians and technicians have contributed their efforts to help these young people put their message of hope out on CD.

Congratulations to this new generation for their contribution to making our world a better place.

[25th Anniversary of the 1980 Referendum, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today, Quebec held its first referendum on its political future.

Forever engraved in our memory is the image of René Lévesque trying to ease the pain of thousands of sovereignists by leading them into Gens du pays and, in his hoarse voice, telling them, “If I understand you correctly, you are saying, 'until the next time'.”

Since 1980, Quebec has continued to move forward. Remaining true to itself, it has grown in unity and confidence over the past 25 years. It has become a society that is even more open to the world, even more diversified and even more inclusive.

Despite the attempts to set them back, Quebeckers have never stopped progressing. Today, Quebec is more ready than ever to take charge of its destiny and to speak for itself within the community of nations.