Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the Prime Minister. If nothing irregular happened, why did the Prime Minister's spokesperson, Mr. Peter Donolo, mislead the public in January 1999, saying that neither the government nor the Prime Minister were involved in the decisions made by the BDC? This was reported in the National Post on January 25, 1999.
On February 10, 1999, when asked if the Prime Minister or a member of his staff intervened with the Business Development Bank or any other department to obtain money for Mr. Duhaime, why did the Minister of Industry state that the loan decision was made by a vice-president and that it was not an order in council appointee who was appointed to determine the process? These statements were later found to be false.
The Prime Minister himself went to great lengths to write a letter that was sent to the National Post , and that date is November 16, 2000. The Prime Minister contradicted himself when he said in that letter:
I...had no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel...or...with the adjacent golf course.
That was directly contradicted by himself in the Chamber when he indicated that he did speak to the Business Development Bank president twice and also spoke to him at 24 Sussex.
There are so many contradictions surrounding this entire issue. We do know some of the facts. We know that the Prime Minister sold his part ownership in the Auberge Grand-Mère, just north of his home in the town of Shawinigan, to a personal friend, Mr. Duhaime. We know that in 1993 he tried to unload those shares to the adjacent Grand-Mère golf course, but that was not completed. This is the important fact. The transaction did not occur. The shares came back to him, which he later admitted to the ethics counsellor in a letter to him.
At the important time in question when the lobbying was occurring, when the Prime Minister was in touch with the president of the bank to try to secure the loan, he was still in possession, still a potential beneficiary of those efforts.
After two rejections, two efforts to secure loans by Mr. Duhaime, he finally got his $615,000 and then went into arrears. During that time the decision was made to foreclose. The president of the Business Development Bank later lost his job over that decision, we maintain.
There was a conflict of interest in lobbying to aid this hotel, which would also directly aid the adjoining property.
The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has repeatedly raised questions about this issue, also about Mr. Jean Carle, who went directly from the PMO to the board of directors of the Business Development Bank. That in and of itself, I would suggest, certainly creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, where a lot of information might be available to interested parties.
The former clerk of the Privy Council, Gordon Robertson, stated this “What happened in Shawinigan would never have met the standards set in Pearson's code of ethics. The Prime Minister has lowered the bar.”
The Prime Minister, who was subject to this code as a member of the Pearson and Trudeau governments, said which provisions of the Pearson code were not too stringent for him to follow. Why did he lower the bar? Why has he refused to answer direct questions about this topic? Why has he designated the Minister of Industry to come to his defence to help navigate these murky waters?
Canadians deserve better from a Prime Minister who campaigned on watchwords of transparency and ethics.