Hansard excerpts- Question Period - Oct 17,2005

Government Contracts

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): 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?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, INAC's audit evaluation branch is reviewing its operation. Some part of this review involves sensitive personnel information. We asked that the information be kept sensitive. In the vast majority of the report, there is a trail involved. The work that was asked to be done was done.

* * *
David Dingwall

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): 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?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will pay Mr. Dingwall only what legal counsel advises us that we must. There is currently an independent audit re-examining his expenses. I am pleased to inform the House that the results of the audit will be released by Wednesday of this week.

* * *

David Dingwall

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Prime Minister's Office spoke with David Dingwall before he submitted his letter of resignation. We also know that the Prime Minister knew that Dingwall's remuneration agreement did not include severance. Therefore, severance pay would be entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

I would like to ask, when the Prime Minister spoke with David Dingwall who raised the issue of severance pay? Was it Mr. Dingwall or him?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will pay to Mr. Dingwall only what legal counsel says is required.

Moreover, a review is under way by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in terms of the expenses. The report will be made public on Wednesday of this week. We shall have a full accounting as to whether his expenditures were appropriate. Were they not appropriate, then those that are inappropriate would be deducted from any severance payments that he might receive.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister began claiming that severance was an obligatory aspect of the government's obligations and that it be paid immediately following David Dingwall's resignation. Yet the Prime Minister could not provide us with a single legitimate reason, no contractual obligation, no legislation, no legal opinion.

The only possible reason for the Prime Minister to pay Mr. Dingwall severance is that he promised to pay Mr. Dingwall severance. Why did the Prime Minister promise David Dingwall severance pay?

¸ (1430)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sometime ago I said there would be two reviews conducted by the Mint. The first is the audit which I just mentioned a few moments ago. In addition, there is a review to examine the processes of the Mint with the possibility of improvements being recommended.

I am pleased to announce that the Mint has engaged Peter Dey, a well-known expert in corporate governance from the firm Osler Hoskin & Harcourt to undertake this review.

* * *
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians now see that the virus of Liberal entitlement, rot and corruption has spread into the department of unlimited spending.

The Minister of Indian Affairs has now been caught signing a major contract with an Ottawa consulting firm that demands verbal advice only and specifies that the consultant leave no paper trail for the Auditor General.

Canadians have seen these sorts of liberally sensitive gag order contracts before: the Earnscliffe contracts with the Prime Minister's former office, the Groupaction contracts, and now Indian affairs.

Who instructed the minister to avoid public accountability, to avoid the House, and to avoid the Auditor General?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, as part of an audit exercise within the department and following Treasury Board guidelines, the branch hired experts. The contract called for an oral presentation on the initial findings from confidential employee interviews. It was a small part of the contract. There is a contract. There is a statement of work. There is a clear audit trail which shows the department got what it paid for.

[Translation]

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is verbal notice of a dirty Liberal agreement. Two weeks ago, the President of Treasury Board confirmed that he does not know how much the Liberal government is spending on aboriginal programs. What a surprise. Even consultants working for the department are doing so in secret. The Auditor General made this same criticism about the sponsorship scandal and the Earnscliffe contracts.

Why is the minister hiding the truth from Canadians?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the member did not listen to the answer in the first instance. There is a contract. It is very transparent. It shows the department got what it paid for.

* * *
National Defence

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has authorized the purchase of 77 add-on armour kits for the LAV IIIs located in Afghanistan. They are available at three different levels of performance, with the third generation being the latest and the best. Incredibly, the minister has chosen to provide our troops with 10 year old, first generation protection, not the latest and safest version.

The Prime Minister said that he would not put our military in harm's way without giving them the best of equipment. Generation one protection is not the best equipment.

Why is the minister prepared to put our troops at unnecessary risk with outdated protection?

Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take the protection of our troops extremely seriously which is why the Minister of National Defence has authorized the purchase of brand new vehicles with up to date protection for those troops.

We recognize that the threat is an evolving threat, changing all the time, and first and foremost is the protection of those troops. That is why we authorized the production and delivery of those vehicles as soon as possible.

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that answer is nonsense. It is just rhetoric that adds nothing to the security of our troops.

Joint Task Force Two is buying 40 millimetre grenade machine guns, which are definitely required by the army to replace protection previously provided by antipersonnel landmines. Unfortunately, they are not buying grenades that self-destruct. Unexploded grenades can maim and kill innocent people just like mines.

Is the minister prepared to contravene the spirit of the Canadian sponsored treaty to ban antipersonnel landmines by leaving unexploded grenades littered throughout Afghanistan?

Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member points out one of the threats there, and that is unexploded devices, not only those but the IEDs that we have seen being used with such deadly effects in Iraq. We know this and that is why the minister and all of our defence colleagues are working very hard to ensure our forces personnel are protected.

I might say that it is well known that our forces in Afghanistan are some of the best protected forces there on the ground. We will do no less for our CF members who work so hard to ensure peace and security will come to the beleaguered country of Afghanistan.
Firearms Registry

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, provincially, Manitoba reported the highest homicide rate in Canada for 2004. Just last week an innocent bystander, 17-year-old Philippe Hayart, was shot to death in a gang crossfire while walking down the street.

The government has sunk more than $1 billion into the gun registry, money that could be spent on front line police officers to make our streets safer in Manitoba.

When will the government realize that criminals do not register their guns? When will the government shut down the gun registry and put those resources toward front line police officers?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only people who do not get the importance of gun control in this country appear to be members of the opposition. In fact, front line police use this system over 35,000 times a week. The chiefs of police endorse this system and describe it as an ever increasingly important tool in our fight against crime.

I find it amazing that the opposition would suggest that a comprehensive approach to gun control is not absolutely key to keeping our families, streets and communities safe.

¸ (1455)

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the only people who do not get it are those in the Liberal government.

Over the weekend a TTC bus driver was shot in the head after getting caught in the middle of a dispute during his shift. Just hours before the shooting, I attended a crime and justice forum in Scarborough where constituents were in unanimous agreement that mandatory prison sentences were needed to control the recent wave of violent crime. The Liberal government has opted for throwing money at an ineffective gun registry instead of investing in front line policing to keep our communities safe.

When will the Liberals start listening to Canadians and institute mandatory prison sentences for violent offenders?

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the government is concerned about our communities and the violence that is being demonstrated in those communities.

Clearly this is a complex matter that requires a number of steps to be taken. One of those is dealing with legislation, which we already have on the books, another one is working with the community groups to educate the public, and the third one is to make sure we work with those other community groups that are interested in keeping these young people employed in other aspects of their lives and not to participate in this sort of activity.

* * *