Debates of May 16th, 2000

Committees Of The House

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was incredibly relevant because you and I spoke about the problem of what happens when you are not able to keep tight control of things, whether it be a bakery or a book writing magnate. I have absolutely no idea.

Let me move on. In Chapter 27.17 he states that in 1998, as part of an audit of Indian affairs, concern was raised about the release of funds before complete documentation requirements had been satisfied. The paperwork must be done. It has to be finished, and it was not completed in Indian affairs.

In Chapter 27.18 in the 1990 audit of citizenship development programs of the Department of the Secretary of State the need to establish criteria for evaluating applications and results against program objectives was identified. Ten years ago they had the same concerns. It does not look like a lot has been solved since then. It was consistent with earlier observations concerning the need for departments to put more effort into monitoring and assessing program results. Even before 1990 they were concerned about it.

Chapter 27.19 states that in 1990 instances were reported where the Department of Industry, Science and Technology had not exercised due diligence. Imagine, no due diligence. Their work uncovered cases of projects being approved despite initial departmental analyses indicating that they did not meet eligibility criteria.

Chapter 27.20 of the auditor general's report of December 1998 stated that the 1993 audit of the northern cod adjustment recovery program administered by fisheries and oceans revealed the lack of a clear legislative authority to deliver the program, significant difficulties in targeting payments to those closely affected by the moratorium on fishing northern cod, payments to individuals who did not meet eligibility requirements, and weak financial management and controls. It looks to me like the nineties was kind of a painful decade for governments. Of course we remember that the Mulroney Tories were in office in the early nineties up until 1993 and then the Liberals took over. Frankly I have not noticed a whole lot of difference.

In fact, if we look at what is actually happening today regarding time allocation, it is just unbelievable. In the 33rd parliament which commenced on November 5, 1984, after the September 4 election of that year, time allocation and closure under Mulroney were brought in 20 times. There were 18 time allocation motions and 2 closure motions for a total of 20 times in that parliament.

They got a taste for it. I guess they figured it was not half bad. They could just ram through whatever they liked. The Tories were re-elected in November 1988. That parliament ended on September 8, 1993, when the writ was dropped by Kim Campbell. Remember her, she was the girl that had a summer job in this place.

In the 34th parliament the Tories got right into it and thought that they liked it so much they could ram anything through and perhaps they were divine. They brought in time allocation and closed debate off 46 times; 31 time allocation motions and 15 closure motions. They kind of liked this power thing. They could pretty well do whatever they liked here. They could just motor through. They could shove it through. They could ram it through. They could do whatever because, after all, perhaps they had the divine right to govern. They were here so they could do whatever.

If we add 20 and 46, that makes 66 times in the 33rd and 34th parliaments which commenced on November 5, 1984 and went until September 8, 1993. That is unbelievable. Now there are some Liberals snorting over there, shaking their heads in dismay. It was disgusting, certainly, but it was over nine years.

Let us look at time allocation and closure in this parliament. I know one of the members over there is new and she probably could hardly believe these numbers herself, but let me just refresh her memory. The 35th parliament began on January 17, 1994, after the October 1993 election. As I recall it was about 54 degrees below zero that day. Does anyone remember? Some would and some would not. In January 1994 when that parliament began it was cold, but boy it was hot in here. They were gearing up for unbelievable things.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

It was not bike weather. That is for sure.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

It was not bike weather. The member got that right. In the 35th parliament which started on January 17, 1994, 37 times the government closed off debate with 32 time allocation motions and 5 closure motions. It is unbelievable.

In the 36th parliament, which is still ongoing and seems longer all the time because we watch them in operation and it is thoroughly amazing, 30 times already the Liberals have brought in closure on various motions: 29 time allocation motions and 1 closure motion. That is why we have a record setting event here today on this report stage to which I am speaking. It is hard to believe.

I do not think any one of them should be proud of it. I do not think any one of them is proud of it but they can explain it away so well. The Ottawa 67s, here they are right across the way: 67 times with 61 time allocation motions and 6 closure motions.

They would have all kinds of reasons, I am sure. They would have all kinds of reasons about how hard it is to govern and how they need to get all this magnificent legislation through. Some of it has been pretty thin gruel, as you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, because you sit in that chair for some hours at a time, thinking to yourself, I bet, what does this have to do with the nation's business. Precious little. He is seized of the issue. Yet there it is. It is all so important they just have to ram it through.

Some of it probably need not be brought forward in the first place. Some of the big legislation we have to deal with in this place gets short shrift. With 67 times these Liberals even outshoot and outscore the Mulroney Tories for closing off debate. They never thought they would hear that. I am sure they did not, but they are there. They are the record holder now.

I like Mark McGwire's record myself a whole lot better. There is a champ who knows how to hit a home run. He is supposed to hit home runs. That is what he gets paid for.

Government does not get paid to stifle debate and ram things through. The Mulroney Tory reign in power commenced on November 5, 1984 and ended September 8, 1993, approximately nine years. The Liberals under the Prime Minister came to power on January 17, 1994. They reached their 67th use of time allocation and time restriction on May 16, 2000, today. What a sad day for democracy. As I recall that bunch of people used to go pretty ballistic. I was here.

I would like to read a few quotes which are really precious. Let us go back to Mackenzie King. He was the longest serving Liberal prime minister. He said in the 1930s that closure was, “The most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable”. Imagine. Something has changed between then and now. He was a Liberal prime minister too. Is that not something. He said that it was the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government was capable.

If given the chance the government members would leap to their feet and say that things have changed, that things are different now and they know what they are doing, that Mackenzie King had it easy. I do not think Mackenzie King had a really great time in government in the 1930s. Those were not happy times in our country. Yet it is okay now.

In a speech given by Mr. Stanley Knowles against the use of closure, he referred to former Liberal minister Frank Oliver's statements on the subject when he said, “Closure is not a blow at the rights of the Canadian people. When closure is imposed in this way by the moving of a motion that is out of order, it is a blow that strikes at the very heart of our democratic system”. Those were carefully chosen words. That was a Liberal who said in 1956 that closure was not a blow at the rights of the Canadian people, it is a blow at the very heart of the democratic system.

Of course, the government members would say that things are different now too and that it is not closure. I love that little argument. They say it is not closure, that it is time allocation. Not one person in the House, even the Liberals when the day comes when they are in the opposition, could be convinced that there is a big fat difference between time allocation and closure. It is semantics. It makes a precious argument and it looks good in the scrum. But they will never convince me or anybody else across the country that there is any major difference between closure and time allocation.

No matter what the logistics of it are, the end run is always the same. The government stifles debate in the House. When I first came here I thought this was the house of debate. Yet whatever it is, it does not suit the Liberals' purposes and they want to ram it through so they use time allocation or closure. It really makes no difference what we call it.

Let me go to another one. This is the member for Ottawa West in 1989. For goodness sake, she is here to hear it. I am sure she will confirm it. Talking about Mulroney, she said, “This government has shown it has no respect for the public process, no respect for parliament and no respect for the opinions of the public”.

Here she is today being dubbed as one of the Ottawa 67s. In government it is so much easier. It is fine when they are in government to ram it through.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It is harder.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

It is harder but still not too hard. Otherwise they would not have to do it.

Maybe we should get a banner made up. Maybe we could go to the hockey team. Now that it is May we could get the Ottawa 67s jerseys and hand them over to those folks. They would not be able to wear them proudly like the Ottawa 67s hockey club does. The Ottawa 67s hockey club is proud to wear them. What does 67 mean? I was 15 and I remember that song. We were proud in 1967 of the Ottawa 67s hockey club. Yet the deputy whip said it is harder when in government. Maybe it is. But the question is, is it necessary? I think not.

Some of the legislation that has gone through the House probably was not necessary to even bring forward. That which was, surely to heaven, if everyone in the House spoke for 10 minutes on it, that would not be insurmountable. Members are given 10 minutes for speeches. The Leader of the Opposition is given an unlimited amount of time which we appreciate, but not everyone is so lucky. I am lucky and I am blessed.

Let me say again for all hon. members who are either listening or pretending they are reading that being in government is an incredible, serious responsibility. The government members cannot just toss this stuff off and say it was not okay in opposition, but it is okay now in government.

Here is the Ottawa 67s and it says Liberals on the jersey. Is that not cute. They would be proud to wear those Liberal jerseys, I am sure. Taxpayers' dollars were not used, an hon. member paid for it. I bet he wears this jersey with a lot more pride than he would wear an Ottawa 67s jersey today because he is a member of the 67th time allocation government that is proud of that.

Let me read a quote by another person who sits in the House, the current government House leader. When I first came here in 1989 I do remember the rants. Oh my. I sat back up over there between the Liberals and the NDP. I was the first and only Reformer for four and a half years, and oh, he was the professor, as one of his colleagues has said. He thought differently of time allocation when he was in opposition, I dare say.

Even though it is so difficult for him to bring it in, and harder as two of his colleagues have said, now that the Liberals are in government, this is what he said. I thought he believed it because I was here in November 1992 when he said, “I am shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on dozens and dozens and dozens of occasions. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.

That was the government House leader. How things change. How things change when they go from this side to over there. Oh, it is harder. It is like when your mom and dad say, “It kills me to have to give you a licking. It hurts me more than it does you to have to send you to your bedroom. I am so sorry I have to do this to you”. Nobody buys it. Nobody buys it at all.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you are ready for a shift change. I am delighted to have you here, but I have another good quote which I will set aside until the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, takes the chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who is now our Minister of Foreign Affairs had this to say on March 31, 1993, “Madam Speaker, do you realize that with the vote this afternoon, closure has been used in this House 25 times since 1988”. Oh, my, he was scandalized. Twenty-five times does not hold a candle to what we are at today with 67. He said, “That equals the number of times closure was used from 1913 to 1988”.

Wow, it is growing exponentially now. “In four years this government has used closure more often than all the other governments going back to 1913”. From 1913 to 1988 of course he was scandalized by that as a Liberal opposition member. Boy, he has eclipsed them now. He went on to say on March 31, 1993, “That is a direct demonstration of the kind of disdain the Minister for International Trade and his colleagues have for the Canadian people”.

I guess we have seen disdain with a capital D here today. The Liberals do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate. It is so awkward and just gets in the way of things. It is so difficult to ram things through if people are being obstinate and they want to debate the issues. Honestly.

To be willing to waste that much time is unbelievable. We would almost think the Liberals got elected to debate the issues or something. They do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate; they simply want to close the door so they cannot hear the real voice of the Canadian people.

A Liberal member in opposition back in 1993 said, “These kinds of arrangements concocted in the backrooms in the wealthy eating clubs the Minister for International Trade frequents are not working in the interest of Canadians. They are not working in the interest of other working people around the world”. How things change. Yet they will say to me today, “Things are harder when we are in government. It is so difficult to bring in time allocation and closure when we are in government. It is hard don't you know, girl?”

I know a remedy for all that pain they are going through. Let people in the House address it and have a debate when it is over.

Let me read one more quote. I have some really good stuff here about the minister's reserve and I will get right back to that, but let me finish the quote. It hit the newspaper. Not much from Hansard hits the newspaper but this did. This was the article on April 1, 1993, “That is as many times as closure was used between 1913 and 1988 and displays the utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people, said an angry Minister for International Trade”. It is hard to believe.

I was talking about the transitional jobs fund and I made mention also of the auditor general. I think one of the particular funding lines that I was using in terms of amounts, was pretty staggering, it was a doozy.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

It is well worth waiting for. They are sitting on the edges of their chairs.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Good, they ought to be sitting on the edges of their chairs.

I was talking about funding for the provinces and it was an amazing amount of cash. It is hard to believe, it was millions and millions of dollars. I would like to narrow that down a little and talk about some of the specifics of particular ridings.

The minister for HRD oversees the whole thing. I would like to use one example from her riding, that of Duchess Foods International which we asked a few questions about in question period not so long ago. Let us look at this particular riding. We do not want to be critical of Duchess Foods in particular, it is just the example I am using today.

There is an access to information document which we received in September 1999. Duchess Foods International is a prosperous six year old business from Hamilton which makes frozen food products, such as stuffed baked potatoes, for the President's Choice label. It relocated to the riding of the HRD minister after receiving a transitional jobs fund grant of $369,000 on May 26, 1998. The minister had provided her approval on May 9, 1998.

The company purchased land from the city of Brantford for $112,400 in June 1998 and received two Business Development Bank loans in January 1999 totalling $1.5 million. It also received a targeted wage subsidy grant of $20,305 on August 7, 1998. That is my wedding anniversary. I did not get exactly that on that day, but it got a grant of $20,000. The local mayor and development board officer were keen to move the factory. A local Brant agribusiness opportunities agent also pressed for the grant. The total project cost was $2.1 million and total federal assistance was $1.89 million, not much to take up.

The member from Hamilton is here. I know that she was interested in this when it all happened. It is hard to believe that on March 20 HRDC Brantford staff faxed this memo to the Duchess owner, “As mentioned, we do have a major concern regarding the displacement of jobs from one community to another, i.e., Hamilton to Brantford. You may wish to clarify your position. Were these new jobs that were being created?”

HRDC itself said this looked like a transfer. We just asked a question in here a few days ago about that very thing. It is that shell game that I mentioned earlier. It takes this over here and shoves it over on this side and people get so mixed up they are not quite sure what happened in the first place. But it looks to me, and probably to any other taxpayer who might be watching this, that if it took x number of jobs from Hamilton and slipped them across to Brantford, not many miles down the road, how in the name of good sense could they call that job creation? I do not even think that is a possibility.

The funding analysis and recommendation document from the local HRD office explained: “The employer has satisfied the issue of relocation from Hamilton to Brantford. The number of jobs to Brantford is significant, especially at the non or low skilled level, which will meet the needs of our labour market”.

Who convinced them of that? I do not think anyone was totally convinced. On April 10, 1998 Duchess Foods wrote to the HRD office in Brantford explaining that it planned to renovate a facility in Hamilton, but decided it was not suitable and dropped the idea. It pressed for a grant and made it clear that it would not move without it. Oh, here comes the threat: “We will not move without it. Give us the money or else”.

On March 9 Duchess Foods asked for a decision within three weeks. Later it changed the deadline to May 8, saying “I am doing business in your riding. I want to move my business because my facility is not big enough or good enough any more. Give me the money or I am out of here”. That does not sound like cricket, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure you would run your business that way: “Give me the money or I am gone”. No, you are in business because you think it is a good deal. You will work hard and it will help you in your retirement. You enjoy it while you are there. I have seen you enjoy it while you are swabbing the decks.

On May 7, 1998 the local HRD office stated that Duchess Foods had decided to purchase land and build, not lease, a building in Brantford. This was also stated in the minister's approval document. Application was made for the money on May 14. The company preferred to stay in Hamilton to retain its employees. That sounds like ping-pong, going from Hamilton to Brantford and then back to Hamilton, saying “Give us the money. If you do not give us the money we are not going to go. Now we are going to stay here”. On and on it goes.

It decided to move because the facility in Hamilton was housed in three separate buildings. It wanted to consolidate and expand, yet the old facility was a total of 29,000 square feet and the new one it constructed in Brantford was 13% smaller. Woops. “We didn't have enough space with 29,000 square feet, so we are going to build a new place with 25,000 square feet”. It is not bigger and better, that is for sure. It says, though, that it could be enlarged. When it gets some government cash down the road it might be.

In its application documents Duchess Foods indicated that it expected 96 employees to leave the company because of the move. These would be moved to Brantford and 60 more jobs would be added, for a total of 156, but only 60 of them would be new.

I heard the speaker, Mr. Speaker, and you did too, I am sure. In fact, I have every question that has been asked about this whole thing in this document, which I will get to sometime later. I am sure she told me that 156 jobs were created. Whoops. In fact, most of it was shuffling the deck, transferring around—move them here, move them there, move them anywhere. Only 60 of them were new.

The TJF program approval document, signed by the minister, mentioned: “It is anticipated that a number of the current employees of the company will not transfer to the Brantford location”. That seems pretty clear. They are not going. They probably had a long enough commute anyway and they are not interested in commuting any farther.

In February a large layoff—and we do not know the size—principally of Brantford residents, prompted complaints to the minister's office. The reason was unclear. The employer said they would not be rehired due to poor performance. I guess they were doing okay at the Hamilton facility if they were going to be put in the new facility, but all of a sudden, poof, due to poor performance.

The HRD office explained that the owner neglected to tell them that the jobs were seasonal—“Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you. You are laid off”—and then mentioned that a reorganization was necessary in order to maintain and attract new customers.

As of February 25, 1999, just over a year ago, 60% of the employees were from Brantford and the rest were from Hamilton. Those from Hamilton were slowly dropping off. I would not want to make that commute every day. I know that traffic is very busy in that area and it would not be much fun to drive, I am assuming.

Only $101,762, or 27%, went to wage costs. The remaining three-quarters went to capital and building costs, and the cost of moving equipment. I do not think that is allowed under that grant. I think most of it was supposed to go to wage costs.

The approval document signed by the minister stated “The funding will be taken from the minister's TJF special allocation for Brantford”. Dippity do. Presumably this referred to the $500,000 allocation from the minister's reserve. As of August 5 Duchess Foods had not submitted a final report on its project, due on June 2, the first anniversary of the official signing of the TJF grant. Of course, there are a few questions that would need to be asked. We have asked many of them. It is a pity they are not answered. But, anyway, we will ask them again.

The HRD minister said that the $500,000 allocation from the minister's reserve was never spent, yet the document signed by the former minister of HRD, now the Minister for International Trade, said that it was. One says it was signed; the other says it was not signed. Who is telling the truth? It is a pretty simple question. If one says A and one says B , and they are diametrically opposed, then surely somebody is not coming forward with the goods. We need that answer.

Here is another question. The approval documents signed by the minister showed that the unemployment rate was 10.3%. Why was the main TJF rule broken for the minister? We know it was 12%, but it is the old “We have pockets of unemployment. We can just pick a pocket and put the cash in”.

Here is another one. Why was so much federal money given to the company? The project appears to have been 90% financed by the federal government. Who would not want a sweet deal like that? It was 90% financed by the federal government. Do hon. members think that if they had a business in the same area, in the same sector, that they might be a little frustrated because it might put them at just a hair of a disadvantage? That is unbelievable. How could anyone run a business side by side with this company? When it moved in it got 90% of its funding from the federal government. Are other businesses supposed to compete with that? I do not think so. How could any company resist this proposition? How could anyone turn up their nose at it? It only had to put up $200,000 to get an entirely new building.

Here is another question. Why was a successful company, operating profitably in one community, given government money to move to another community? Why was federal TJF money used to displace workers, to ship them from here to there? That is unreal.

Here is another question. Why did the HRD minister claim that 156 jobs were being created when only 60 were created? That is quite a discrepancy.

Here is another question. The highest paying job created was $10 an hour. Were federal tax dollars used to trade higher wage jobs in Hamilton for lower wage jobs in Brantford? I guess that is a legitimate question that needs to be answered. If there is a good straightforward answer for it, then we want to say “Sure, we will buy that”. But I do not think the Liberals have ever come forward with an answer.

The highest paying job created was $10 an hour. Were federal dollars used to trade higher wage jobs in Hamilton for lower wage jobs out in Brantford? That is another example of how the minister could get her paws, get her claws, get her hands on an amazing amount of money. That is the riding of Brant. I could go on and on about that riding, but I will spare hon. members. There is a better one coming.

Hon. members will remember that I told them about how much money went into Quebec. In large measure, of course, it was to buy some seats for the Liberals. But, boy, I would say that in the Prime Minister's riding it was a bonanza.

Let me give hon. members a little chronology. The Prime Minister's misuse of the transitional jobs fund: a chronology. This one is precious. Hon. members read this in the newspaper, I am sure. Oh, yes, they read it in the red book. I am not sure if it was quoted directly in the red book, but it was in the newspaper when we were campaigning in Edmonton in 1993. The article is from the Gazette of October 15, 1993, which stated: “In each public appearance in the region Wednesday night and yesterday the Prime Minister reminded them that he will probably have enormous clout as Prime Minister to pull government strings. `When a dossier for Saint-Maurice lands on a cabinet minister's desk—need I say more?' he said to rounds of laughter during one meeting yesterday”.

There it is. Is that the raison d'être that a Prime Minister comes to power? Is it for this? “When a dossier for Saint-Maurice lands on a cabinet minister's desk, you bet I will be there”.

Who could brag about that? “Just keep the requests coming. If I am the guy in charge and it lands on my desk, I will be there for you. I will look after you. I will pay you off”. That was in the Gazette of October 15, 1993. That is not something I could even dream up. That is an exact quote from the Prime Minister when he was running for office. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Let us look at number one in the chronology, the Auberge du Gouverneur Shawinigan. This $6.4 million hotel project is owned by Pierre Thibault, a businessman from Belgium. He received federal government grants and loans. An amount of $600,000 was announced on March 13, 1997 under the HRD targeted wage subsidy program, which was then changed to the transitional jobs fund when Mr. Thibault claimed that he needed capital funding immediately. He could not afford to wait for wage subsidies, he needed the cash right away. He had a promise from the man who would become Prime Minister, saying that if a dossier for Saint-Maurice landed on a cabinet minister's desk it would be looked after. What was Pierre Thibault to do? He had $600,000. He could not wait to go the legitimate route.

Mr. Thibault lobbied for and received $100,000 under the TJF in January 1999. He had a Business Development Bank loan in the amount of $925,000 and a $400,000 unsecured loan for his numbered company—and this is a good one, 9047-4412—from Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, a federal regional development fund, in September of 1998. This totalled $2,025,000. That was a portion of the $6.4 billion, but I am just getting warmed up.

Let me mention political donations. Quality Inn La Rocaille, which is also owned by Mr. Thibault, gave the Prime Minister a reception worth $1,054 after the election on June 19. The election was held in October 1993.

The $600,000 grant was announced without any departmental paperwork. That made it simple and fast. It was advertised in the Prime Minister's householder, dated April 1997. I am not privy to what the Prime Minister thinks, but I knew there was an election coming. The writ was dropped, I believe, on April 27, 1997. There was no paperwork on this grant, no nothing, but it was advertised in the Prime Minister's householder. Someone in his office knew to print this up.

Mr. Thibault is a self-confessed embezzler. He has said this and there are criminal investigations going on. He is the subject of a criminal investigation and involved in legal disputes.

On December 16, 1999 the opposition revealed a memo showing that the Prime Minister's office felt it had no choice but to approve the grant because the Prime Minister had already personally promised the money to Mr. Thibault. He had even announced it at a press conference, even though it did not meet Quebec regional TJF guidelines banning funding for restaurant and bar facilities. The Prime Minister said he had to approve the loan. He had a gun at his back. No way.

The Prime Minister had already personally promised the money to Mr. Thibault. He could not go back on his promise. He told him that he would give him the money and he announced it at a press conference. The Prime Minister could not be embarrassed. He told Mr. Thibault that he would get the money and he got it. That is nuts. That is the story of the Auberge des Gouverneurs de Shawinigan.

Things do not stop there. I am only at page one. I feel like Paul Harvey.

The Auberge Grand-Mère is a hotel owned by Yvon Duhaime. We have heard Mr. Duhaime's name before in the House. This hotel lies adjacent to the Grand-Mère golf course, purchased in 1988 by a numbered company, 161341 Canada Inc., in which the Prime Minister held a 25% interest. The address of the head office of 161341 Canada Inc. is still listed as the Auberge Grand-Mère.

The Prime Minister says that he sold his interest in the company to Toronto real estate developer Jonas Prince a few days before becoming Prime Minister, but Mr. Prince stated in the press that he only purchased an option to buy the shares and chose not to exercise it. There is a big difference between saying I sold it and you bought it and saying I sold it and they were actually options for shares and somebody chose not to exercise them.

In January 1996 the Prime Minister phoned the ethics counsellor at home and said that the deal had fallen through. He was advised that he could resume ownership of the shares but he would have to declare his interest publicly. Since he was never paid for the shares he knew that he owned them. Over three years later his lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, sold them. That is unbelievable.

I suspect this is getting painfully relevant here. We see a pattern when a government says how well it is managing everything for us and “Trust me. I am from the government and I am here to help you”. This is the way personal affairs are conducted.

We see what is happening in the House today. The Prime Minister and many government members when they were in opposition said it was a dreadful thing. They were not able to control their shock and amazement at the idea of how scandalous it was for the Mulroney Tories. Now all of a sudden they say it is harder when in government. It is so hard and difficult they bring in time allocation. I can see the pain written all over his face as we watch the House leader when he is out in scrums. This is so relevant that it hurts every taxpayer in the country.

Mr. Duhaime received the following in loans and grants: $615,000 from the Federal Business Development Bank in 1997; $164,000 from HRD transitional jobs fund in July 1997, right after the election; $50,000 from the federal regional development fund in 1997; and $60,799 in five different HRD wage subsidy grants in 1997 and 1998. That is a total of $889,799. That is a lot of money.

Let us look a little deeper into the numbered company, 161341. It sounds like a CB: 161341 calling. Let us say earth to 161341. Let us look at it. We received an access request in the official opposition from the office of ethics counsellor revealing that the Prime Minister did not formally resign his dictatorship in the above numbered company, which owns the Grand-Mère golf course, until March 4, 1994, almost five months after he became Prime Minister. The document was signed on March 8 and filed on March 14, 1994. It also states that the Prime Minister phoned the ethics counsellor personally at home on the evening of January 27, 1996, to discuss the fact that he still owned his shares in the company.

It seems to me that if he had a little problem he might phone the guy during office hours. If it was life threatening he might have to do something like that, but the Prime Minister again kept standing in the House and saying that everything was okay, everything was absolutely legit.

If I have to phone my staff at home in the evening it would have to be very serious. I do not think it is my business to just ring them up and say “Hey, I want you to look into this for me”, unless it was a pretty big crisis. They have a life too. I do not know how busy the ethics counsellor is day or night, but if he is getting a call at night from the Prime Minister I know there is something going on.

It also reveals that Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor, kept in close contact with Peter Donolo, a handy little relationship. He was the communications director I mentioned some time earlier who crossed over to Italy, I think. The Prime Minister's lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, whom I mentioned a few minutes ago, perhaps helped the Prime Minister to defend himself against charges of conflict of interest. We have to get the whole team in on it now. Things are getting dicey. He has to phone the ethics counsellor at home. He has to phone the lawyer. He has to keep Peter Donolo in there because surely he could put a good spin on it.

First, the Prime Minister has repeatedly maintained that the sale of the shares has been in the hands of his lawyer since he became Prime Minister.

Oops, if that were the case, I would bet a dollar he would not have had to phone Howard Wilson late at night. Here is a quote from June 8, 1999:

Before I became PM I sold those shares and I gave the problem or the receivable to my trustee as with my other assets. She is in charge of managing it.

That was June 8, 1999, in Hansard . Then we see in March 1994 that he phoned the ethics counsellor. We know the Prime Minister phoned the ethics counsellor and the counsellor subsequently met personally with the Prime Minister about it on February 12, 1996 and July 18, 1996. The Prime Minister took a very active role and personal interest in the file. It is in Hansard , and dear knows Hansard is gospel, where he said:

Before I became PM I sold those shares and I gave the problem or the receivable to my trustee as with my other assets. She is in charge of managing it.

The question is why the heck is he phoning the ethics counsellor and meeting with him personally on various occasions about this thing.

Second, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that his golf course shares were out of his hands. They were out of this world but not out of his hands. A chronology included in the access to information request implies otherwise. Let us look at the dates of that.

On January 27, 1996, the Prime Minister called Mr. Wilson at home to tell him the sale of shares had fallen through. On February 12 Mr. Wilson met personally with the Prime Minister. On May 8 Mr. Wilson met with the Prime Minister's lawyer, Debbie Weinstein. On July 18 Mr. Wilson met personally again with the Prime Minister. On July 18 Mr. Wilson sent a model blind management agreement to Debbie Weinstein. In other words this is the way it is done. It has not been done right. Do it this way.

It is a wonder he had time to run the country. He was busy, busy meeting with Debbie Weinstein, Peter Donolo and Mr. Wilson. It is hard to imagine he would have had the time or the energy to run the country in between golf games.

This implies that the Prime Minister was told that he would have to set up a formal blind management agreement in order to have his lawyer deal with the sale of shares. A blind management agreement is struck when one person manages the property of a politician on his or her behalf. Some of us should be that lucky to be in that position.

The necessity for such an agreement would indicate that the Prime Minister, the ethics counsellor and the lawyer all assumed that the Prime Minister still owned the shares in the golf course. Otherwise why would he be filling it out?

Third, the Prime Minister has insisted that he resigned his directorship in 161341 Canada Inc. before he became Prime Minister. On June 1, 1999, a week before, he said again in Hansard : “I quit this company before I became Prime Minister”.

Now we learn that he really did not formally resign his directorship until March 14, 1994, more than four months after he became Prime Minister. It appears that Mr. Wilson struggled to get him to quit.

It is similar to when we go to a fair and they have these little holes in which gophers keep popping up. We get a great big hammer and we are allowed to just bang and bash these guys down into their holes but they keep popping up again. I am sure that is how Mr. Wilson felt. I am sure he thought he looked after the problem and got him to put it in a blind trust but poof, up it comes over here. He tried to solve it by getting Debbie Weinstein to look into this blind trust, and then poof, it pops up over here. He had a heck of a time getting the Prime Minister to actually quit that directorship.

Let us look at the dates. On October 21, which is four days before the election in 1993, the ethics counsellor's office told the Prime Minister's lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, that he was still a director of the company and must resign. In other words, this guy might be the Prime Minister in four days. Get him to resign.

On December 8 the Prime Minister made a personal information statement on appointment to office of the ethics counsellor. On December 22, we are getting close to Christmas here, a confidential report written by the ethics counsellor indicated that something was wrong. Merry Christmas. He has had two months since October 25. It is now almost December 25 and there is a problem.

On January 27, 1994, the counsellor's office phoned the assistant to the Prime Minister, Monique Bondar, who promised to ensure that he was no longer a director of 161341. Oops, there comes the gopher head again. She says okay. She gets into it now and says she will look after it, as she bonks it on the head.

The contents of letter from Monique Bondar of February 1994 were severed. It said that the prime minister no longer had an interest in the golf course. Boing, she thought she had the gofer down in the hole. Whew, she had that out of the way.

On March 1, 1994, the Prime Minister signed a statement of public declaration of past outside activities stating that he was a director of the Grand-Mère golf club, formerly 161341 Canada Inc.

On March 1 there was also a letter from Howard Wilson to the Prime Minister that raised an issue which was severed. What was that issue? Why is there a lack of transparency? Why did he need this little meeting with the Prime Minister? Why, through access to information, were the contents severed? It seems to me that if it is information which is helpful and legit it might as well be brought forward.

[An hon. member]

Who appoints that guy, anyway?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Questions could be raised as to who appoints the ethics counsellor, what is his job and to whom should he report? He gets appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister.

[An hon. member]

And he investigates the Prime Minister.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

He investigates the Prime Minister. He does not report to parliament. If I were to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make me accountable, then I ought to be accountable to people who are watching. Instead, if I asked you to make me accountable and then we have a quiet coffee some place for you to tell me if you think I am accountable or not, what will it look look or what will it smell like? The whole thing is pretty suspicious.

I am sure this poor ethics counsellor is trying his darndest to make sure everything is legitimate. However he does not have to answer to anybody. He just has to have coffee with the Prime Minister and say here is how it looks, Joe, John, Harry or whoever.

On March 16, a couple of weeks later, a letter from the Prime Minister's lawyer to Mr. Wilson stated that the document removing him as director was filed with the incorporations branch of Industry Canada on March 14, 1994. Why would he say on June 1, 1999, that he quit the company before he was Prime Minister? Also he said it on June 8, 1999:

Before I became PM I sold those shares and I gave the problem or the receivable to my trustee...She is in charge of managing it.

It does not look good. On November 15, 1994, a minute sheet was signed by the ethics counsellor. Of course the contents were severed when we got the information. It is entitled “Ownership Interest of Grand-Mère Golf Club”. This implies that the issue was not yet resolved. Otherwise, why would they have a document about it? It could be that the resignation was recorded in the private minutes of 161341 Canada Inc. before he became Prime Minister and the routine official documents were filed after the fact, but the exchange of letters and calls from Mr. Wilson's office obviously suggest otherwise.

I beg anyone in the House or outside to say that this is perhaps irrelevant. I do not think so. This is so relevant that it hurts. We see the business practices of the Prime Minister. We see a person who said before the election that if anything crossed his desk or any cabinet minister's desk which had to do with his riding, he was being a good little MP. Perhaps it is not so good. We are so far in debt and yet we see this kind of political manipulation and interference.

There are two important issues. First, the Prime Minister's word is what is relevant to the whole debate today. How good is his word? There appear to be contradictions between what he said and what he did. There is proof through access to information that is exactly what happened. That is a case we have uncovered. Lord knows how many more there are.

Here are some more unanswered questions which never get answered in question period but need to be raised. It would be great if they ever did get answered. Did the Prime Minister declare that he was a former director of 161341 Canada Inc. when he was in reality a current director?

It is obvious he was a director from the election in October 1993 to March 1994 when somebody caught up to him and said that he was still a director. Why did he declare that he was a former director when at that time he was a present director? If he was a director during those four months, was he in a position of conflict of interest at any time? Those were huge questions because the Prime Minister's attitude was “Cross my desk and I will look after you. Just let me know if you need help and I will look after you”.

When the Prime Minister was appointed to office, what did he declare in his December 8, 1993 personal information statement about his directorship? We have proof that he was still a director. Howard Wilson would tell us that if we could ever find him. He only has quiet coffees with the Prime Minister but we would love it if he would come here and report to parliament, which is, I think, what his job ought to be.

What exactly was in his statement of December 8? The contents were severed from the request. We ended up with a couple of pages that were mostly whited out and five or six pages missing.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

They must buy that whiteout by the 45 gallon drum.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Maybe 161342 Canada Inc. is a whiteout company for which he is partial owner. Who knows?

There was a confidential report by the ethics counsellor about this matter dated December 22, 1993. Why was it necessary and what did it say? It would be great if we could have a look at that document.

Here is another one. When did the Prime Minister learn that his sale of shares had fallen through? What other active interest did he take in the management of 161341 Canada Inc. prior to and following January 27, 1996? I wonder just how closely his fingerprints were monitored there.

Here is another question. Did the blind management agreement have anything to do with the sale of land and the golf course owned by 161341 Canada Inc., which took place only weeks later?

Here is another one. Almost all the contents of the 700 page request were severed. There were 700 pages but we only got four. It was like being told that there were 700 pages but that we could only get six and a half. Most of the pages were just completely gone.

If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why will he not release all the relevant information and lay this matter to rest? It seems absolutely unbelievable why he would not just say that he has it and that he will come forward with it. There is an amazing chronology there.

Let me go to another case in Shawinigan.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Does it ever end?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

No, it never ends, but question period will be here soon. Maybe we will be able to ask some questions about that.

Let me get to Aérospatiale Globax Inc. and the illegal trust funds. On March 7, 1997 the owner, René Giguère, received a TJF grant of $2.04 million, announced a month prior to the election call. There we go again, $2 million right before the election. In other words “If something happens to us here we want to make sure you get the cash first”. Its two daughter companies are Placeteco and TechniPaint. Questions have also been raised any number of times in the House on those two companies. As recently as yesterday, the minister said that if anything was coming out through access to information that we could have it.

However, if we look at the track record of the government when it comes to forwarding documents, most of the pages in the documents have either been whited out or shredded out and precious little is left to get our hands on to really look at.

Let us look at the political donations of this bunch: $4,000 from Globax to the Prime Minister's personal campaign in 1997; $10,692.40 from Globax to the Liberal Party in 1997; $3,467.90 from Placeteco to the Liberal Party in 1997; $604.48—I am not sure how someone gives 48 cents to a political party unless it is rounded out—from TechniPaint to the Liberal Party in 1997; and $569.60 from Placeteco to the Liberal Party in 1998. This totals $19,334.38. This is not a bad return. Get a grant and give back a donation and things are looking pretty sweet.

What a wonderful way to do business: Give some, take some, give some and on and on it goes. That is the way the Prime Minister says that business goes. He says that he is just being a good little MP for his constituents. That was in March 1997.

On April 23, 1997, just before the writ was dropped, the first instalment of $440,000 was disbursed to the company. Yee hee, here is $440,000.

On March 27, 1998, almost a year later, on the last day of the 1998 fiscal year, the second instalment was paid to a trust fund set up with the law firm Champagne Cleroux Avocats. To ensure that TJF funds did not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, the lawyer involved was Gilles Champagne. We have seen his name before if we have looked through Hansard . I have some Hansard clippings here, that I will get to in a little while, but they are precious. Gilles Champagne was talked about quite a little bit. He was a two-time political appointee of the Prime Minister to Canada Post Corporation. His contract was renewed on September 28, 1999 and he is still there.

On May 5, 1998 an HRDC staffer commented by e-mail, and I quote:

The subsidy being an interesting element for a future buyer, the Office of the Prime Minister wishes that HRDC do all that which is legally possible to do because if the sale does not take place, a bankruptcy and layoffs will result.

Businesses do go bankrupt and layoffs do happen but this is a staffer saying “Come on, better get this going here. Do all you possibly can”. It is a very strange thing.

On June 11, 1998 TJF officer, Clément Parent, wrote that he had serious reservations about the sale. This was somebody who was pretty worried about this. Did the Liberals pay any attention? No.

On June 17, 1998, just a few days later, HRDC authorized that all but $10,000 of the $1.2 million in the trust fund be paid to the Globax subsidiary, Placeteco, now purchased by Claude Gauthier owner of Transelec Inc. We have seen him on the pages before.

It carries on. On December 10, 1998 Placeteco went bankrupt anyway. All the jobs that the minister and the Prime Minister talked about, all the wonderful jobs that were created, were created and then the employees were laid off. Mr. Gauthier re-purchased it. Do we not just love it? We can go bankrupt and then just re-buy the thing a few days later, eight days later. He stated that as the new owner he would not be bound by the hiring requirements contained in the contract with HRDC and resumed operations with just 62 employees, less than half of the 155 jobs he had agreed to. It never ends.

Mr. Gauthier got government money, went belly up and then re-bought eight days later and said “Here I am again, all you lucky people, and I do not have to abide by your guidelines. I do not need to hire 155 people. I will hire a skeleton crew of 62 to do the work”. That is what we call cash in our pockets. It is a sweet deal.

On April 7, 1999, just a year ago, the last instalment of the $400,000 was paid in trust to Deloitte & Touche at the request of Mr. Giguère who claimed that a big deal for TechniPaint was in progress. It is like someone saying “Stay tuned, a big deal is coming. We want more money and we are coming for more. Everything will be okay because we have a big deal cooking”. If it was such a big deal there ought to have been enough private people to invest in it.

On May 25, 1999, almost a year ago, HRDC headquarters heard of trust funds and found that the first trust fund violated section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines. This was starting to get serious. It was not just my word against his word. This was the Treasury Board guidelines and the Financial Administration Act.

The second trust fund violated Treasury Board guidelines. The funds had to be closed and the money, with interest, returned to the consolidated revenue fund. Great, that is a really sweet and practical use of taxpayers' dollars. Why this money is being shipped out to these people in the first place would be a really good question to ask.

It goes on. Number five is the lobbying activities of René Fugère. I wish I could be reading members a novel and that this was chapter five of a fictitious work, but this is so true that it hurts and it so relevant that it hurts even more.

I am sure all members remember René Fugère. I am sure they read Hansard . Whatever they miss in the daytime they catch up on at night and they will know René Fugère. On May 28, 1997 René Fugère, an unpaid aide to the Prime Minister, appeared on the Prime Minister's behalf at a press conference four days before the 1997 election to announce a TJF grant of $164,000 for Yvon Duhaime and the Auberge Grand-Mère. Why in the world, during a writ period when an election was on, was the Prime Minister muddling around giving cash to anybody? I suppose it looked legitimate because somebody was working on his behalf. René Fugère was out there. It would have almost gone against the guidelines that I read from a little earlier about the wonderful on site visits that Liberal MPs can have. These were really good. The criteria was, of course, that it was really good for site visits as well and designed to be used by the Prime Minister, ministers, secretaries of state and members of parliament when planning to visit regions and home constituencies. With an election on, the Prime Minister had to be somewhat astute and undercover, so René Fugère went on his behalf and said, “Here is the cash, Yvon”. That was $164,000 right at election time.

On August 9, 1997 we had the Auberge des Gouverneurs in Shawinigan. Old René Fugère had a hand in that as well. Access documents showed that Fugère lobbied for and received an extra $100,000 in January 1999 for Mr. Thibeault. That was not bad. That was on top of the $600,000 TJF grant he had already received in 1997. He was a fairly profitable fellow.

On March 12, 1998 Celebrity Boats gave all lobbying authority to Mr. Fugère in writing.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

He must be a registered lobbyist.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

One would almost think that he would be a registered lobbyist. However, surprisingly, he is not.

Mr. Fugère was part owner of a former incarnation of that company. The company began but it had a few problems. It was not able to live on government money and it collapsed. However, before we knew it, it was reincarnated. Now I have never believed in reincarnation, and I still do not, but when René Fugère is involved in the business world it really makes one wonder. He lobbied for $600,000 and got $368,235. Well, he did not get it all, but he did get over 50%. That was not bad. He asked for $600,000 and got $300,000 and felt that it was all in a day's work.

On March 26, 1999 there was the Salle de Quilles Biermans. This bowling alley, owned by Claude Bellerive, burned down. Whoops. It then received $45,000 from TJF with Mr. Fugère's help.

In 1997 Cirtech Inc., a company also owned by Claude Bellerive, gave $4,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign. I am sure it was just a complete irony, but it looked like a 10% rebate.

[An hon. member]

11%

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

I appreciate being corrected. Nonetheless, he received $45,000 and gave $4,000 back.

On May 14, 1999 the National Post reported that EARTH Canada received a $38,400 interest-free loan from Canada Economic Development after Fugère was made a director of the company on January 13, 1999. Is it any wonder that any company would want him on its list of directors? It seems to me that he would be a pretty worthwhile asset when looking for government cash. Mr. Fugère received 150,000 stock options in the company.

Gilles Champagne, and we have heard that name before, is a lawyer friend of the Prime Minister, from Shawinigan, who established two illegal trust funds for TJF recipients, was twice appointed director of Canada Post Corporation by the Prime Minister. He was made president, chairman and CEO. He got 500,000 shares. May 14 was a lucky day for EARTH Canada. It is saying “EARTH to Fugère. EARTH to Champagne”. These two guys are very close and are now hitting the big times. They are members of the board, the president, the chairman and the CEO of EARTH Canada. They also have stock options.

On May 19, 1999, almost a year ago, the ethics counsellor wrote to the RCMP asking it to investigate the activities of Fugère for a possible breach of the Lobbyists Registration Act. Was it any wonder? He was certainly busy. When one writes to the RCMP asking for an investigation, it would seem that things are not exactly legitimate or above board.

Let us move on to November 1999, just a few months ago, and a company called Les Maisons Beam. The National Post said that Mr. Fugère asked for 6.5% of whatever he could get of a TJF grant for this company. The company paid him $15,000 in service for 1988 but when he asked for $8,000 more, the company refused. It is not a good thing to get greedy.

Fugère allegedly phoned the department and told it to shelve the application. In other words “Oh, oh, I got caught here. Better shelve the thing and keep it quiet”.

December 15, 1999, just a few months ago, the National Post reported that 10 days after the first TJF disbursement of $100,000 was received by the Auberge Grand-Mère, Yvon Duhaime cut a cheque for $11,500 to Fugère.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Commission.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

One would wonder if it was a commission. I guess we cannot really say that it might be a commission or a cut, but boy, I will say it looks like dollars for dollars.

On February 29, 2000, leap year day just a couple of months ago, the opposition revealed that Mr. Fugère also lobbied for the Scierie Opitciwan sawmill on a reserve in Quebec in the riding of Champlain, next door to the riding of Saint-Maurice. Does the hon. member remember the old quote? I am not sure he was here when I was reading the quote of the Prime Minister before the election in 1993, so I will make sure I share that with him because it is incredibly relevant to the Scierie Opitciwan reserve.

On October 15, 1993, just a few days before the election, the Prime Minister reminded the people in a public appearance that he would have enormous clout as Prime Minister to pull government strings. He said, “When a dossier for Saint-Maurice, anything out of that riding, lands on a cabinet minister's desk, basically I will be there to look out for you”.

It looks like that is exactly what happened with the Opitciwan sawmill on the reserve in Quebec. The sawmill received in 1998 $300,000 from TJF, a $1.8 million loan from Canada economic development for Quebec regions and a $200,000 subsidy from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Not bad.

Let us do a little tracking of the donations to the Prime Minister's 1997 campaign. Exactly one-third, 33% of the donations to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign can be linked to grants, contributions and contracts in his riding. There would be people who could make all kinds of claims that this is a terrible thing for us to do and we should not be connecting these things one to another, but these are the facts and these are the dollars.

Aérospatiale Globax Inc. gave $4,000 to the campaign and got $2 million in TJF grants. Les Confections St-Élie gave $1,500 to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign and got two TJF grants totalling $285,108. Megatech Electro gave $400. That is not very good because it got a $1.3 million TJF grant. It hardly makes it all worthwhile. The Liberals did all the paperwork for the grant and they got $400 back for their campaign. It is not a very good percentage.

Here is a better one. Transelec gave a single cheque of $10,000 to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign. It received a CIDA contract. There was $1.19 million to Globax subsidiary Placeteco acquired by the owner of Transelec.

Les Industries Fermco gave $2,000 to the Prime Minister and received a TJF grant of $200,000. That is getting a little better percentage. It gets $200,000 and gives $2,000 back; I mean it made a donation of $2,000.

Cirtech gave $4,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign. It is owned by Claude Bellerive who received a $45,000 TJF grant in the Prime Minister's riding for Salle de Quilles Biermans. Les Consultants Mesar gave $1,000 to the Prime Minister and received HRD grants in the Prime Minister's riding worth $13,000. That is a pretty good percentage too. That is a fair chunk of change.

Stone Consolidated gave $5,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign. The Prime Minister was a former director of this corporation which received HRD grants of $13,000 in the Prime Minister's riding. It gave $5,000 back as a campaign donation.

Muniressources gave $2,000. Shawinigan International Inc. received $46,305 from Canada economic development for Quebec regions. Muniressources is a co-founding company of Shawinigan International. Is it not handy the way they are all kind of warm and intimately linked.

Then there is Abatoir A.L. Bellerive Inc. which gave $500. It received a CIDA contract worth $117,400 even while the RCMP were investigating its involvement in a $1.4 million tax fraud. But it can still give the money over. That totals $30,400. That is 30% of total personal and business donations of $90,325. That is a fair chunk of change to come up with in someone's personal election campaign. That was not even donated to the party. That was just to the Prime Minister's personal campaign.

There is another one we cannot forget about, the great water fountain in Shawinigan. Canadians have heard about that. A few questions have been asked in question period about it. This is pretty hard to believe.

On February 8, 2000 Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec which is the federal regional development agency for Quebec, announced a $200,000 non-repayable contribution to build a lighted fountain in the Saint-Maurice River in the Prime Minister's riding. A non-profit group called Heritage Shawinigan is heading the project.

Here are some facts about the actual application. On March 31, 1998 the office of the minister for the economic development agency received a file from the Prime Minister's office. A note says, “The file was sent by Denise Tremblay of the Prime Minister's office”. In other words, “Hint, hint, look out, this comes straight from someone important in the PMO, tick, check, pay attention to it”. I bet there was a red flag on it.

On May 5, 1998 a letter from the EDA for Quebec regions indicated that the formal application for funding from Heritage Shawinigan was received on May 4, over a month after the Prime Minister's office sent the file to the EDA for Quebec regions. The file had already been in process for two weeks when the application was received. Might as well get a jump on it. Might as well move ahead a little bit, get a bit of a jump on it. It is so awkward when they have to wait for the application form to come in. They might just as well get the ball rolling.

Another note further explains, “The file was submitted by the office of the Prime Minister and sent to us for analysis on April 18, 1998”. This suggests that the Prime Minister actually initiated the grant process prior to an application from the project's sponsor. The timing on this is unbelievable. That same note dated May 28 recommends that the project be approved. The internal approval process took just over three weeks. That is faster than greased lightning around this place. It is just unbelievable. All of a sudden the thing is through. The project was approved by letter to Heritage Shawinigan dated July 6, 1998.

Les Consultants Mesar undertook a feasibility study on the proposal for which Heritage Shawinigan paid it $8,000; $5,000 of this amount was received from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Les Consultants Mesar donated a total of $1,000 in three separate gifts to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign in 1997. It is just so easy to say, “Here's to you. Thanks very much”.

The project was supposed to have been completed by September 1, 1998 but the announcement was delayed until February 8, 2000, at a time of controversy surrounding grants and contributions. No reason was given for the delay. In other words, “Oh, oh, it is getting a little close to home here. Those troublesome opposition members of parliament are asking questions about these things so we had better lie low for a while”.

Under the terms and conditions of the agreement signed and accepted by the sponsor dated August 3, 1998, the client had to begin the project on September 1, 1998 and finish it no later than September 1, 1999. The announcement for the funding came five months after the project was supposed to have been completed. It had to go underground for a little bit, or under water let us say. By the time the thing was supposed to be finished, the announcement did not even come until five months later. It still has not happened. The project will be 80% funded by government. Imagine, such a worthwhile deal and it is 80% government funded.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the motion we are dealing with today has to do in particular with HRD spending, abuse within the HRD system and so on. The member has been speaking at length about problems within the HRD system but she has been talking about other grants as well. I am wondering if she could point out the relevancy. I want to make sure that it is relevant to the debate, whether the grants and so on she is talking about are actually HRDC—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the hon. member is debating right now.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker is convinced that this is relevant. Members know it is not just HRDC. The government is dishing out $13 billion in grants and contributions. HRDC is certainly a large part of it but boy, it just flows over every description.

There are lots of Liberal non-answers to the shenanigans in Shawinigan which we have talked about. The whole Shawinigan shakedown has gone on for quite a while now. The Liberals do not allow questions. Let me give a couple of examples.

On May 25, 1999 the Liberal member for Essex who chaired the industry committee in response to Tory questions about whether or not the two hotel owners in question were up to date in their loans, said that questions about individuals would not be allowed. That does not make a whole lot of sense to me. If during a debate we have some questions to ask in the House or in any standing committee, it is unbelievable that it would filter down from the top, from the Prime Minister to the committee chairmen, to everyone else to say something like that. Or they just do not show up.

On May 6, 1999 ethics counsellor Howard Wilson appeared before the industry committee for the first time since June 1994. Did the red book not say he was going to report to parliament? I was sure it did.

How about the “I believe I sold them” line? The Prime Minister said “I will feel until I die”. Do we not love that one, “I will feel until I die that I sold the shares in 1993”. Remember the fracas I just went through in listing the whole chronology. He said he was a director then he said he was not a director. He said he sold his shares and was not a director of the company anymore, until he got caught and found out several months after the 1993 election.

What about claiming innocence? On June 3, 1999 the Prime Minister said “I have followed all the rules for 36 years”. But he had just said in the House a couple of days earlier that he had sold all his shares and was not a director when he became Prime Minister. Howard Wilson, the ethics counsellor in March 1994, months after the 1993 election said that the Prime Minister was a director.

“The Prime Minister's grants are like any others” is another tactic used by the Liberals. On June 2, 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister said that the projects in the riding of Shawinigan were no different from the job creation projects approved in reform party ridings. Let me put that little myth to bed.

The Prime Minister has the levers of power and the levers of money. When people go to him as their little MP to get help or to lobby, it is not like going to even a Liberal backbencher or an opposition member because they have nothing to give in return. But in the Prime Minister's situation, a whole pile of stuff can be given in return.

On March 18, 1999 the Minister for International Trade said that one of the strengths of the transitional jobs fund was to consult with local members of parliament. As soon as local members of parliament get involved, there may be some good feedback and input, but the whole thing is subject to political interference. There are some members who would be tempted to interfere politically in order to get grants for their people. I know he wears his Liberal sweater proudly at the hockey games, so he would never be seen doing anything foolish like that.

[An hon. member]

Skating around in circles.