Debates of March 21st, 2001

Ethics Counsellor

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, all the information required was provided yesterday in a letter that was tabled before the industry committee.

Let me quote from what the ethics counsellor said yesterday, less than 24 hours ago. He said:

I am satisfied that the prime minister had no personal interest at stake when he assisted the auberge in its applications before the Business Development Bank.

He went on to say that the golf course ceased to have an interest in the auberge in mid-1993 and that the Prime Minister ceased to have a financial interest in the golf course in November 1993.

Most people could understand that, even the Leader of the Opposition.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple: Whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999?

The Prime Minister is shaking his head. He wishes this would go away. The future hopeful leader is wishing it would go away. That is a lot of baggage to carry.

The only question we are asking is whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999? That is all we are asking.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Leader of the Opposition is having great trouble with the simple, hard, disappointing reality that the Prime Minister's name was not on the registry after 1993 because he was not a shareholder.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Industry, when I asked the ethics counsellor if the Prime Minister was involved in negotiations to obtain payment of his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, he clearly and distinctly replied “Oh, yes”.

Does the Prime Minister admit that he was directly involved in the negotiations and that he personally ensured he would get paid for his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is there to provide advice on ethical issues to all those who need to have trustees. All ministers, including the Prime Minister, have the right to consult the ethics counsellor.

So, under the circumstances, I spoke to him about my personal affairs, as ministers must do when they have problems, and it is his duty to provide advice to us.

The ethics counsellor said that everything had been done properly and that my trustee had given him all the information and had fully co-operated, and he delivered to us a certificate confirming that everything was in order.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor said that the Prime Minister was personally involved and that he had mandated his lawyer to negotiate. He added that the Prime Minister clearly had an interest in getting paid what he was owed.

Does the Prime Minister recognize, as his ethics counsellor did yesterday, that he had an interest in getting paid for his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, and that he had a financial interest, when he was involved in negotiating what is called a “financial interest”?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we did not have shares in that company since November 1993.

Someone owed money to us and I wanted to get paid. Since I earn less than the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who gets $160,000 in addition to his salary as party leader and member of the House, I wanted my money back, which is perfectly normal.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Roberval.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime Minister had every interest in getting paid for his shares, and the Prime Minister has just confirmed this.

Is the Prime Minister going to admit that his personal interests were served by the business development bank loan to Auberge Grand-Mère, since the financial health of that hotel was tied to the value of the golf course, and this could not do otherwise than to help him find another purchaser?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, money was owed to me, and I had no interest whatsoever in either the golf course or the hotel. I did, however, want the money owing me to be paid. That is completely normal.

They are making accusations, but the RCMP has looked into the matter, the ethics counsellor has done the same, and the Minister of Industry has stated that I did not own shares. That should be clear to everyone.

In my opinion, when people rise in the House, when everyone says there is no conflict of interest, then—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand each other very well; that is what we have been saying from the beginning. The Prime Minister wanted to get paid.

He wanted his money when he made approaches to get help for Auberge Grand-Mère, to obtain a loan despite the unfavourable opinion of the Business Development Bank of Canada. It was in his personal interests to do so, as he just confirmed. Well, then let him take the floor and tell us otherwise.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have always said the same thing. I have said from the start that I was owed money.

What I also said, and what people are forgetting, is that it was my duty to work to ensure that jobs were created in a riding where there was 19% unemployment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

This business in fact employs 50 people today, which is 20 more than in 1996. It was my duty to help create jobs in the riding of Saint-Maurice and I do not—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair has to be able to hear the questions and hon. members will want to hear the questions. The hon. member for Halifax has the floor.

Trade

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister vehemently denied that the government is selling privileged access to FTAA leaders. Let us consider carefully what the government's own tender call for corporate sponsorship said.

It advertised a sponsor leaders' welcoming reception. What do they get? They get a potential speaking opportunity. It advertised a sponsor networking breakfast to address delegates. It also advertised a keynote luncheon with priority seating and a closing reception, a networking opportunity.

It sounds a lot like privileged access to me, or is the government just engaging in false advertising?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that we have invited Canadian business people who have major interests in all these countries to show them that they are good Canadian citizens, that they are well known in Canada, and that they are welcoming these leaders to Canada so that they can conclude they are good investors in their countries.

I think it is good public relations in the best interest of improving trade between Canada and the 33 other nations.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the government would be as transparent with the negotiating text as it is with its corporate access program. It is plain for all to see that access to FTAA leaders is for sale. We even know the price tag. We also know that corporations have access to the negotiating text.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How much did the corporations pay for the negotiating text, or was it just a freebie for them?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is completely ludicrous to pretend that the business people have access to the negotiating text. As a responsible government leading these negotiations we obviously consult. We consult trade unions. We consult business. We consult universities. We consult people all over the place, but they do not have access to the special negotiation text.

I remind the House that the government stands for making these texts public as soon as possible, but we need the consensus of the rest of the Americas to do it.

Ethics Counsellor

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Hansard of March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister said:

I sold the shares of that company in 1993. After that I had nothing to do with either the golf course or the hotel...The debt that was owed to me...was in the hands of a blind trust. I have nothing to do with it.

However yesterday Mr. Wilson said that the Prime Minister was implicated in the negotiations to dispose of the shares for three long years.

Was the counsellor wrong? Did he mislead the committee? What kind of blind trust allows the Prime Minister to be actively involved in negotiations?