Debates of April 4th, 2001

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, let us assume that the Prime Minister is telling us the whole truth, let us assume that the 1993 bill of sale was a final document. I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister.

Why should his company compensate the new buyer in the event of a problem? Why should his company pay Mr. Michaud's lawyers? Why should he pay for something if he no longer has any interest? I would appreciate an answer.

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, lawyers always put in every contract all the clauses that they think are necessary for the protection of the final deal.

This is what happened in this case. I apologize to the hon. member for replying in English. I simply want to tell him that everything has been said for weeks and weeks.

This proves once again that they have nothing against the government. Just yesterday, they tried to tarnish the Minister of Finance's reputation. They have absolutely nothing to do other than try to destroy people who have given a very good and honest government to all Canadians.

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, basic honesty requires a person to answer questions. We would appreciate it if the Prime Minister began answering questions.

When the Prime Minister tells us that the lawyers covered everything in case something were to happen, is he telling us that Mr. Michaud was afraid there might be an inquiry and that he arranged for the Prime Minister's company to pay for his lawyers? What interest did the Prime Minister have in agreeing to such a clause, if he was not involved? Is he so generous as to help anyone who is in trouble?

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that I read that document only when it was tabled.

The whole transaction was completed by the person who acts as my trustee and lawyer. She did not even inform me of the nature of the documents. She settled the issue and, as far as I was concerned, everything was very simple in that, as of November 1, 1993, I no longer had any involvement with this golf club, which has probably been an issue for months and even years in this House.

Caroline St-Hilaire Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the lawyers had provided for everything in the September 1999 contract. They even provided that the Prime Minister himself would assume the cost of any inquiry.

Are we to understand that, if the Prime Minister agreed to such a clause, it was because he was sure there would be no investigation, because he is the one who decides in the end?

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, had she listened to the answer—because her question was prepared in advance—I said that I was not even aware of the nature of the document. My lawyer in charge of the trust settled that and she did not inform me of the nature of the documents she signed with whomever.

Caroline St-Hilaire Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Prime Minister that he is the one who keeps saying the same thing, because he is incapable of proving his innocence in this whole matter.

So, in ethical terms, the Prime Minister has again put himself in a position of conflict of interest, since, by deciding or not to hold an inquiry into his own activities, he is judge and jury in a decision that concerns him directly.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he has put himself, in ethical terms, in a very difficult, if not untenable, situation by agreeing to this clause, which makes him judge and jury in the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère?

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the House will vote. All members will vote later today.

Alexa McDonough Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, finally hope on the horizon, at least potentially, for Canadians desperately concerned about the future of health care. Roy Romanow is a fervent champion of medicare. We applaud his appointment, but let me say that the success of the commission depends upon the government.

Will the Prime Minister give assurances that the terms of reference of the commission will be sufficiently broad to include the threat of privatization from flawed trade deals, and that the government will actually implement the commission's recommendations? Will he give those assurances?

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the NDP for complimenting the government for the actions that have been taken.

She knows that I know Mr. Romanow very well. Before accepting the job, he read the terms of reference. I can tell the House that if the terms of reference had been too narrow, he would not have accepted the mandate I gave him.

Alexa McDonough Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that the Prime Minister might be willing to bring the terms of reference before the House so we could debate and strengthen them.

The fact that the Prime Minister evaded answering my question is not promising. Canadians want these issues addressed.

I will repeat my question. Will the Prime Minister indicate that it is the government's intention to address the threat of privatization posed by trade deals, and that the government will not leave these recommendations on the shelf to gather dust as has been done so many times by previous commissions and forums?

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I said in my little meeting with the press earlier that Mr. Romanow, like the people on this side of the House, believes in the five conditions of the Canada Health Act and in that there is no place for privatization of the health care system in Canada.

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, after weeks and weeks of debate I looked in the House yesterday and there was a time when there was not one Tory member in the debate in the House of Commons. I agree entirely with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who said:

The Prime Minister could have put this matter to rest a long time ago by providing definitively...everything if he was to table a document that would give us the agreement of the sale.

He said to table the document and I did.