Grant Hill

[Human Resources Development, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the files are still active.

Les Confections St-Élie supported the Prime Minister's election campaign. This company was on his 1997 election brochure. Was his intervention because his pride was at stake for a company that had supported his election campaign? Is that not why he intervened on its behalf?

[Human Resources Development, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this latest Shawinigan shakedown for which the RCMP was called in.

The Prime Minister's Office intervened three times to pressure bureaucrats to grant $223,000 to Les Confections St-Élie in the Prime Minister's riding. It promised to create jobs but it actually lost 20 jobs.

Why did the Prime Minister intervene and break the rules?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is what did the government do when it was made public? Absolutely nothing. The money flowed. The money continues to flow even today.

The government had an opportunity. It could clean up or cover up. My question stands. Why did the government choose to cover up the sleaze in public works?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing in that answer you will notice is that between 2000 and now, nothing happened, zero.

The Prime Minister sent his personal advisors to this meeting. They knew what was happening and they had a choice. They could have chosen to clean it up or cover it up. Why did the Prime Minister and the Liberal government choose to cover up the sleaze in public works?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, very interesting indeed, “I expect it will comply”. Has the minister changed his mind since last night at midnight? He was defending this program yesterday. Is this not another reason for a full blown public inquiry?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, notice the words “I would expect my department”. This is an opportunity for the minister to stand in the House and tell all Canadians that the Liberal sleaze going to Groupaction is finished. Will he do that? Yes or no.

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian taxpayers call that stalling, quite frankly.

Let us go a little further with this. Here we have a company that got 75% of advertising services. That is against the rules. Now we find the same group, the same affiliate, the same Claude Boulay invention got another $13 million. Our question is this. Is this not another reason for a public inquiry into Liberal friends getting Liberal contracts?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the government did not stop the Groupaction sleaze at all. Let us talk now about the Groupe Everest sleaze. We revealed yesterday that Media IDA Vision got 75% of government advertising services. Now we find another Claude Boulay invention, Media Vision, got another $13 million.

Could the minister explain why these Liberal friends get all this business?

[Cabinet Ministers, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister fired one of the major leadership rivals. Brian Tobin quit in a huff. I just wonder if this is not a new mechanism to keep another leadership rival so busy that he will hardly be able to breathe.

[Cabinet Ministers, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa South has said he is too busy. Listen to the things he has on his plate. He is the political minister for Ontario, he is in charge of infrastructure, he has security, he is the Deputy Prime Minister and now he is the finance minister.

My question is pretty straightforward. Which of these jobs is he going to do part time, or does he expect a salary for each one of them?