Ed Broadbent

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a chance to deliver on his rhetoric now. Does he maintain the highest ethical standards? If so, will he get to his feet and demand publicly that Mr. Dingwall repay the $350,000?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the ethical standards of the government.

Today in the House the Minister of Industry continued to say it is up to the company to retrieve the illegal $350,000 payment that Mr. Dingwall got. The Minister of National Revenue continues to imply that Mr. Dingwall is entitled to some kind of severance pay, which according to the law he is not.

Will the Prime Minister clarify this ethical situation? Does he support these low ethical standards of his ministers, or does he support the people of Canada who believe Mr. Dingwall does not deserve another cent and should repay the $350,000?

[Ethics, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, former Liberal cabinet minister and lobbyist David Dingwall was paid an illegal commission of $350,000, an action that violates Treasury Board policy. Instead of blaming Mr. Dingwall for ethical wrongdoing and demanding that he repay, the Minister of Industry has taken action only against the company.

In another example of irresponsibility, the Minister of National Revenue said, following Mr. Dingwall's resignation from the Canadian Mint under a cloud of accusations, the government is actually going to give him an undisclosed severance package.

This is an abandonment of ethics in government.

Mr. Dingwall was not fired. He voluntarily resigned. There is no provision for severance pay in his contract. He will receive his MP's pension of about $77,000. Instead of giving him another undisclosed multi-thousand dollar handout, the government should demand that he repay the illegal $350,000.

[Electoral Reform, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the deputy House leader.

We have just heard another example of empty rhetoric. Last June the deputy House leader promised there would be action taken so we could begin the serious process of electoral reform by next Monday at the latest. Nothing happened over the summer.

Is this not another extraordinary example of the cynicism and empty rhetoric of the government that the people of Canada want removed from politics?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my hon. friend and I liked his pie metaphor. If I recall correctly, he said that he did not want to choose between apple pie or blueberry pie. I want to say to him that I like apple pie and blueberry pie. The wonderful thing about this budget is that we can have both the apple pie and the blueberry pie. This budget means more money for post-secondary education, for affordable housing, for the environment and for paying down the debt, while still ending up with a $2 billion surplus.

Having listened to some Progressive Conservatives in the past, when I first came to this place several hundred years ago, I would have thought there would be a number of Conservatives here now who would like that kind of balanced approach, doing some social good and being fiscally responsible. My hon. friend has a few grey hairs like I have myself and I am sure he can remember back to that good period.

When we have a budget that balances the books, pays down the debt and has, at the same time, all this good social spending, how can one seriously vote against it?

[Democratic Reform, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer and I take him at his word.

The minister knows full well that if the citizens engagement group and the parliamentary committee are to get under way early in September, preparatory work will have to be done starting as early as in the next few weeks, especially for the citizens engagement process.

Will he assure the House that this work will be undertaken in the next few weeks so that the committees can start their work early in the fall?

[Democratic Reform, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for electoral reform.

Twenty-five years ago, two distinguished Canadians, John Robarts and Jean-Luc Pepin, recommended that a system of proportional representation be added to the House of Commons. They said the need was urgent on a national unity basis. Regrettably, since then nothing has been done. We still have elected, unrepresentative, regionally divisive caucuses.

Will the minister assure the House that he will accept the report that was tabled yesterday that includes citizens engagement and almost certainly will result at last in a system of proportional representation in the House of Commons?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

And the Conservatives in Saskatchewan before that.

[Health, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up with dialogue. They want action to save the system and it is crucially important to get it now.

I come back to some of the specifics. All the experts are talking about the need to improve waiting times, to keep drug costs down and to provide lower cost home care.

I ask the minister to be concrete on these three areas. What plans will he take in the near future to put pressure on the provinces to act in these areas to save the system?

[Health, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision opens the door further to privatized two tier health care in Canada.

The minister knows we already have private clinics in four provinces. Not only has the Liberal government done nothing about this, in many of the instances of privatization, the Liberals have been complicitly supporting it.

Will he finally wake up and take decisive action to save Canada's public health care system?