Grant Hill

[Government Contracts, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to this Ferrari contract with Health Canada to talk about aboriginal issues.

Yesterday, the health minister said that Joanne Meyer had no relationship with the department after January 2002; in other words, not my problem. That was wrong.

This individual had a contract with her department in February 2002. Will she explain that?.

[Government Contracts, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that minister stands up but there is another minister over there who will end up answering these questions, whether in here or outside.

I would like to go through this. JM Enterprises had a contract. That contract was suddenly terminated and given to, get this, a Ferrari restoration company in Winnipeg.

The question stands: Why did that contract not go directly to JM Enterprises? What is the minister trying to hide?

[Government Contracts, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when the industry minister was in charge of the health portfolio he allowed an untendered contract to go to a Winnipeg Ferrari restoration company for work relating to aboriginal health. The work was actually done by Joanne Meyer, someone well-known to the minister. Why was this untendered contract not given directly to JM Enterprises?

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it even stronger: that is even more incorrect. I have the agreement that the foreign minister has and that agreement is truly a blind management agreement. I have an agreement of another cabinet minister and it is truly a blind management agreement.

This agreement is a supervisory agreement and I would like to table it in the House so that all Canadians could see it. This is not a blind management agreement.

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that this arrangement with the former finance minister was a blind management agreement. That is not accurate. I could say it much stronger, but it is certainly not accurate.

I have that agreement with me and it says “supervisory agreement”. I want the Prime Minister to tell all Canadians again today, as I asked him yesterday, that this is the only minister who has this agreement, yes or no.

[Ethics, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for the government to stand up and try to excuse such a blatant conflict of interest by another government is absolutely 100% wrong.

I want the Prime Minister to say to all Canadians that the former finance minister had a special supervisory agreement that no other cabinet minister had.

[Ethics, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal code of ethics allowed one cabinet minister to have a special agreement so that he could still supervise his company's affairs. That minister of course was the former finance minister.

Will the Prime Minister admit today in front of all Canadians that the former finance minister had a special supervisory agreement that no other cabinet minister had?

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it was the same thing in Shawinigan and is the same thing with CSL.

A blind trust is supposed to prevent a cabinet minister from having personal knowledge about his companies. We now know that there were significant meetings with CSL officials.

So I ask the question again, as I did not get an answer: Does the Prime Minister still hold that that arrangement qualifies as a blind trust? Because I do not.

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague really wanted was a complete removal of the transportation tax, totally.

I will go back to the issue of blind trusts. Canada's ethics counsellor, speaking in Australia back in February 1999, said, and I quote:

In a nutshell, you can be a personally active investor or you can be a Cabinet minister. You cannot be both.

Now that the Prime Minister knows that the former finance minister had numerous meetings with officials in his big company, does he still think that qualifies as a blind trust?

[Ethics, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister had the most to lose and the most to gain in his personal finances when he was in the cabinet. That is why a blind trust was so important for this individual. That is why he could not be in conflict of interest if he did have true blind trust.

I ask again, why did the Prime Minister approve an arrangement where it looks like the former finance minister could have been in a conflict of interest?