Stephen Harper

[David Dingwall, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary is really saying is the returns were too good, so they want to clamp down on them.

Just to draw the contrast, yesterday the government said that it would deduct any improper payments from the severance it wanted to pay the Prime Minister's friend David Dingwall. We know that David Dingwall already improperly received $350,000 from Technology Partnerships.

Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will deduct that $350,000 from any payment to David Dingwall?

[Income Trusts, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what seniors are saying. Seniors are seeing a government full of waste and scandal, whether it is fisheries, or Indian affairs, or the Mint or Technology Partnerships. They see the same government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors.

Here is what CARP quotes seniors actually saying:

Your actions are happening at a time when retirees are facing some very major increases such as energy costs...As government, you should be trying to help the people, not hurt us.

Once again, and another chance for the Prime Minister, will he back down and reverse his ill-considered decision on income trusts?

[Income Trusts, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has tried to claim that it has support for its actions against income trusts, but here is what the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said today:

—based on the surge of e-mails, faxes, letters and telephone calls...seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for essentials of daily living.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit he bungled, backed down and reversed his position on income trusts?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to pay severance to David Dingwall, he should be able to stand up and defend it himself.

In a third example, a newly released audit of travel expenses at the federal fisheries department has uncovered yet more horror stories. Unauthorized claims, vacations on the public dollar and luxury flight bookings are only some of the examples.

Why can the Prime Minister not get a grip on the pervasive misuse of tax dollars throughout his government?

[David Dingwall, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the minister have had 12 years to complete these reviews. Their time is up.

For the second example, despite the misuse of money at the Mint and Technology Partnerships Canada, the Prime Minister is still negotiating a severance package with David Dingwall, this in spite of the fact that not a single expert has come forward to say that there is an entitlement to severance when one quits a job.

I ask the Prime Minister, why is it that Liberal insiders continue to get generous severance packages even when they are not entitled to them?

[Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, reports today indicate that ethics in government now rivals health care as a public concern. I guess this is not surprising, since there are growing waiting lists for both.

As an example, in February of this year, the Indian affairs department awarded a contract to a company with instructions that there be no traceability for the work done. Why, nearly two years after the Auditor General condemned this practice in the sponsorship scandal, does the government still award contracts with no proper audit paper trail?

[David Dingwall, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, trite rhetoric, but the industry communities and workers are still looking for an action plan from the government.

The final example, the government keeps trying to justify a half a million dollar severance package for David Dingwall against the growing opposition of even members of the Liberal caucus. The government's own labour minister said, “If he thinks he deserves a severance package after having quit, then he should sue for it. I don't think he should be entitled to it”.

How could the government continue to make the case for severance when its own minister responsible for severance legislation thinks the idea is ridiculous?

[Softwood Lumber, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we will have that conversation with the Board of Internal Economy and we will look for the government's support to have that rolled back.

The second example, the Prime Minister is flying down to New York on a public relations exercise. This trip will cost Canadians thousands of dollars, but the Prime Minister on softwood lumber has not yet laid out any plan of action for Canadians and he has not yet even bothered to speak with the President.

Why does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate to spend thousands of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money when he cannot even bother to pick up the phone at a few cents a minute and call the President?

[Gasoline Prices, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since this House returned two weeks ago, Canadians have seen how out of touch the government is with the use of taxpayers' money. I am going to give a few examples.

The first example, today we find the government actually does favour a break on the high price of gas, but only if one is a politician or a civil servant. This does nothing for ordinary Canadians, except cost them money. Not only do they have to pay more for their own gas, now they have to pay more for the gas the government uses.

Will the government show some respect for taxpayers by cutting gas taxes and by cancelling this mileage bonus for civil servants and politicians?

[David Dingwall, October 5th, 2005]

We will wait and see, Mr. Speaker, but the CTF says we have been waiting for 10 years, and $9.5 billion later, for some help on gas taxes.

Despite the Prime Minister's silence, no one believes that taxpayers have a legal obligation to give David Dingwall a gold plated severance. Half of his own caucus does not even believe it.

Canadians know they cannot quit their jobs and then demand severance.

Will the Prime Minister table the legal opinion that proves he owes David Dingwall a severance?