Preston Manning

[The Senate, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this deal was not available to everyone. It was only available to someone with an inside connection to the president of that company. This deal has all the appearances of the exchange of a business favour for a political favour. If that is not the case, why does the Prime Minister not go out there and explain to the media and the public what that payment was for?

[The Senate, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering our questions. On March 9 he said “I never realized the options that were offered to me for my services to Mr. Fitzpatrick's company and I received no remuneration when I was there”. But then we have the insider trading report stamped by the Ontario Securities Commission that says the Prime Minister received $45,000 in one week from a sweetheart stock deal.

If the Prime Minister will not explain to the House what this payment is for, why will he not at least step outside and tell the—

[The Senate, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister challenged me to step in front of the TV cameras and ask my questions about his latest Senate appointment. So I did.

Now the Prime Minister should be willing to do the same thing if he has nothing to hide. Will the Prime Minister step outside the House and answer questions from the media about this $45,000 private stock deal from his latest Senate appointee?

[The Senate, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government pretends not to see the problem that the Prime Minister has created for himself by this latest patronage appointment to the Senate.

The Prime Minister receives a $45,000 financial favour from a B.C. businessman while out of office. Then, when he is back in office, he confers a political and financial favour on that businessman by appointing him to the Senate.

Is it not unethical for the Prime Minister to grant political appointments to people from whom he has received a direct and substantial financial benefit?

[The Senate, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a week now Canadians have been waiting for the Prime Minister to fully disclose the nature of his relationship with Ross Fitzpatrick, the latest patronage appointment to the Senate.

Last week the Prime Minister said that when Fitzpatrick gave him a stock deal worth $45,000 it was not payment for any work that the Prime Minister did. We accept that.

Will someone in the government tell the House, if it was not payment for work, what was the $45,000 stock deal payment for?

[The Senate, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government feigns outrage at our questions on this subject but it is the people of British Columbia who ought to be outraged. A Senate appointment tainted with patronage. A Senate appointment tainted with backroom deals. An appointee who could not get elected dog catcher in British Columbia if he had to submit to a democratic vote.

If the Prime Minister wants to clear the air, why does he not cancel this outrageous appointment now?

[The Senate, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Ross Fitzpatrick made a private stock deal with the Prime Minister. He sold him shares at a huge discount, which the Prime Minister flipped a week later. That stock flip gave the Prime Minister at least $45,000 in a single week.

The Prime Minister said he received no remuneration for his work at the company so what was the $45,000 for? Was it a downpayment on a seat in the Senate?

[The Senate, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today British Columbia's latest unelected unaccountable senator was sworn in at the Senate.

Fitzpatrick is not like other patronage appointments though. He actually hired the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was out of a job. Last week the Prime Minister told Canadians that he received no remuneration for that work. Insider trading reports showed that Fitzpatrick gave the Prime Minister a sweetheart stock deal worth at least $45,000.

How does the Prime Minister explain this contradiction?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

The member raised our skepticism with respect to committees. The member will perhaps remember that it was this party that raised the simple business of singing “O Canada” in the Chamber. When we came here, it was not sung.

Of course, we were denied unanimous consent by the now government House leader. Eventually, it was sent to committee and it never came back. It came back later at our insistence. We brought it back on referendum day. It went to committee to be buried and not to be advanced.

My last point is why does the member avoid the main issue? The main issue is what could possibly be wrong with Canadian members of Parliament simply displaying a small Canadian flag on their desks? Has the hon. member consulted his own constituents on this issue? I find it inconceivable that they would deny that simple request.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have three points. The member mentioned polls, he mentioned committee and then he rambled on.

On polls, we would just suggest that if the hon. member has this great faith in polls, he should put this issue to a poll. He can ask Canadians whether the Canadian members of Parliament should be entitled to have a small flag on their desks in the Canadian House of Commons. They can obtain the results of that poll and table them in this Chamber. That poll will show that the position of Reform on this issue is far closer to the thinking of the Canadian people than anything that is presently—