Peter MacKay

[David Dingwall, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is not buying all of what he is saying because based on legal advice the government does not have to pay David Dingwall for quitting his job. With no contract, no law or a legal opinion requiring payment, the government should simply do the right thing and not give David Dingwall anything.

When will the Prime Minister just admit that what he is trying to do is keep David Dingwall and keep all of those ad scam skeletons in the closet? Why does he not just do the right thing and say no to David Dingwall and yes to Canadian taxpayers?

[David Dingwall, October 7th, 2005]

More gobbledygook, Mr. Speaker, from this turkey stuffing minister.

The Canadian public are not very pleased to know—

[David Dingwall, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada do not believe David Dingwall is entitled to compensation. He misused his expense account. He did not comply with regulations on lobbyists. He resigned but is now claiming severance pay. Such an abnormal situation cannot happen under a Liberal government.

When will the Prime Minister deny compensation to David Dingwall? When will he stop betraying the Canadian taxpayer?

[Softwood Lumber, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's phony photo op in New York City yesterday is naturally being billed as a great success by his aides and a new policy of forceful advocacy on the softwood lumber file. It is too bad it was at a CNN studio and not at the White House.

Despite the false bravado, the Prime Minister still has not found time to phone President Bush on this important issue and advocate this tough position.

Based on recent reports, we know the Prime Minister and his cabinet have a great propensity for flying at taxpayer expense. Instead of spending thousands of dollars flying down to New York for a public relations tub thumping exercise, maybe the Prime Minister could just let his fingers do the walking and call the President.

[David Dingwall, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, from Dingwall to stonewall; the minister should flip the tape.

Let us recap the Ding-gate affair: ex-Liberal cabinet minister, illegal lobbyist, architect of the sponsorship program, expense account abuser, quit a patronage appointment at the Mint in disgrace. For this the government says that he deserves a big fat payoff, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. His Liberal colleagues are scattering like headless turkeys before Thanksgiving, but even most Liberals are now demanding that the reward for quitting be abandoned. The member for Parkdale--High Park says it destroys their credibility.

Just who is insisting on the payoff? Is it Dingwall himself, or a nervous Prime Minister who sat with him in cabinet when they designed the sponsorship program?

[David Dingwall, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while the NHL is back with new rules against obstruction, the government continues to rag the puck, clutching and grabbing taxpayers over the Dingwall affair.

It appears that the Liberal B team is divided though. The revenue minister says he was given verbal advice to justify this appalling payoff. The minister cannot point to a contract or a specific clause in government law that would require such a galling giveaway because they do not exist. The Liberal member for Gatineau, a labour lawyer, says the government needs more than flimsy verbal opinions.

Will the minister take the advice of some of his own colleagues and show Canadians some real substantive legal opinions to somehow justify this Liberal severance for silence?

[David Dingwall, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we hope the minister will table it. The Liberals' practice is very common for looking after themselves, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Canadians are outraged by the suggestion that a severance package is even being contemplated for Mr. Dingwall. He had a quarter of a million dollars a year in salary, a huge expense account and the audacity to bill for a pack of gum. Only a dingbat would now defend Dingwall.

The minister has finally revealed the real reason. He said that there may be a long protracted lawsuit. To avoid what? Will the Prime Minister now confess that the real reason he will not table the documents is that he is trying to hide the payoff that is being paid to David Dingwall?

[David Dingwall, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not sense the same degree of enthusiasm on the other side of the House.

The Minister of National Revenue has said that, under the common law, Mint-breaker David Dingwall was entitled to a severance package for quitting his job. That of course was not true, so now the minister says the golden handshake is required by federal laws. Even his caucus colleagues, including the Minister of Labour and some who have practised labour law, do not buy that.

The common person knows that when we quit a job we do not get a bonus when we are walking out the door. Exactly what law or regulation requires the government to pay David Dingwall one red cent for quitting his job? Just what is the minister's authority and will he table it?

[David Dingwall, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the--

[David Dingwall, September 30th, 2005]

Liberals declaring Liberals innocent, what a surprise, Mr. Speaker.

When ad scam administrator, Chuck Guité, was being interviewed for the job, the then public works minister, David Dingwall, said, “Welcome aboard. You won't rat on them, you won't rat on us”. Apparently the code among Liberals in Ottawa is always put your party ahead of the country.

Testimony at the Gomery inquiry and public accounts committee showed that Mr. Dingwall and the the Prime Minister, then finance minister, worked hand in glove, maybe hand in pocket, on a number of contracting issues.

Is the severance package for Mr. Dingwall the Prime Minister's payoff to keep him from ratting? Just what does David Dingwall know that the government wants to keep quiet?