Grant McNally

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my colleague's most excellent speech, but I would ask for unanimous consent to adopt private member's Motion No. 308 at this time.

[Government Grants, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, two non-answers and the government is asking the questions when it is supposed to be answering them. Let us try again.

The Prime Minister has a pretty impressive investment plan going. If a company wants federal government money, all it has to do is donate to the Prime Minister's campaign. It does not even have to be in his riding. There is a 33% chance that the company will hit the jackpot and, boy, are the rewards sweet.

Fermco donated over $6,000 and ended up with $200,000 in a TJF grant despite the fact that a senior official had strong objections.

I ask the Prime Minister, is there a threshold on the amount a company has to donate or will the Prime Minister bend the rules for any size donation?

[Government Grants, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are wondering why the Deputy Prime Minister did not get up and answer the question. Let us try again.

Fermco's TJF grant came through despite strong objections by senior human resources officials. The Prime Minister's office did an end run around normal procedures and ensured that a major donor got a just reward.

The Prime Minister, of course, says that he was just trying to create jobs. However, is it the common practice of the Prime Minister to intervene on behalf of all TJF applicants or just when they donate thousands of dollars to his campaign?

[Government Grants, December 17th, 1999]

Amazingly, Mr. Speaker, one-third of all the donors to the Prime Minister's 1997 campaign got federal government grants, loans or contracts.

But the case of Fermco Industries is particularly interesting.

Fermco gave more than $6,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign and to the Liberal's campaign. Even though the company is in a Bloc held riding, the Prime Minister's office intervened to ensure it got a transitional jobs fund grant.

Other than $6,000 in donations, why would the Prime Minister's office intervene in the local affairs of the Bloc member?

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again I am also a little baffled by my Liberal colleague's inability to understand that the government is responsible for spending.

He seems to believe that tax cuts cannot be given to individuals because we have to keep spending more and more money. That is the fallacy of the 50:50 plan over there. They continue on the path of wanting to spend 50% of the surplus and on the path of a lot of other wasteful spending that they are doing right now.

Would my hon. colleague expand on that misunderstanding? The Liberal government just does not seem able to grasp that concept.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about the budget. I would ask her how she, as a member from British Columbia, could possibly defend the slash and burn approach the government has taken since 1993 in the areas of health care and education? The government has removed approximately $21 billion in this area while reinvesting, as the Liberals like to say, $11 billion. This leaves a $10 billion shortfall. How can the member justify that?

[Business Of The House, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think we might have a few more questions in this millennium, and here comes one right now. I am sure the government House leader is ready for it.

The official opposition would like to know what the business of the government would be for the rest of this week, and if it has any idea or plan as to what it might be doing during the first week back in the new year.

[Government Grants, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister intervened to give a convicted criminal access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money. He discussed the deal with two shady characters, and one of the criminals owns the hotel next to the Prime Minister's old golf course.

Why does the Prime Minister insist that he was just being a good MP when it is obvious to everyone that his dealings benefited him politically?

[Government Grants, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is attempting to throw up a smokescreen when answering questions about shady deals in Shawinigan by pointing to a handful of individuals who support the deal. There are millions of Canadians who do not support it.

Let us review the facts. The Prime Minister promised a convicted criminal and a confessed embezzler hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grants. The deal was helped along by René Fugère who is under RCMP investigation for illegal lobbying. Not coincidentally the Prime Minister owned a large share of the golf course which neighbours the Grand-Mère inn.

Is it not true that the Prime Minister's interest in these dealings goes beyond simply creating jobs in his riding?

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the Speaker's information and for members of the House, I remember very recently the Speaker ruling on another matter having to do with splitting speeches in the House. At that time when he gave his ruling on that point, he did mention that convention will supersede the standing orders in longstanding practices and traditions.

I think that might be something to consider in regard to this point as well.