House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was americas.
Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, it came back and said that it had to make a few changes.
Two long years later, the Prime Minister finally lifted just the corner of the veil over his involvement with “Shawinigate”. He is, however, still a long way from unveiling the whole truth. The documents tabled today raise still more questions.
Is the Prime Minister going to at last get to the end of his dance of the seven veils and agree to an independent inquiry?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has written four or five times to the ethics counsellor, and has always received the clear reply that the shares had been transferred way back in November of 1993. The counsellor has proven this as clearly as possible.
In allowing private documents to be tabled, I have done something that is totally without precedent, something never before done in this House. He has tabled those documents. He has always said, and said again a while ago, that there was neither a conflict of interest nor the appearance of a conflict of interest. All I did was to help the people in my riding to get—
Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, he is not giving us the documents for which we asked. The ethics counsellor did not even look at the register. He asked someone to check it and that person wrote back saying “Oops, there is something here we have to change. We will get back to you later”.
This morning, retired Justice W. D. Parker, who conducted the Sinclair Stevens inquiry, has called for an independent judicial inquiry into this. He said “A commission will make findings of fact”. No one at that time was shrieking louder for an inquiry into the Sinclair Stevens matter than these Liberals.
Will they now listen to the judge who conducted that inquiry and call for a full inquiry into Shawinigate?
Prime MinisterOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor released 11 documents today. This is an unprecedented release of information only because consent was given by the Prime Minister and other parties to these arrangements to have these documents released.
However, we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition the real motivation here. It is called revenge. It is called payback. It is called getting even. It is called making up any kind of allegation to get a headline because he is trying to hang on to his job and he is on pretty thin footing.
Prime MinisterOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. It is impossible to hear the hon. member, and he has the floor.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the documents released at noon today show that the Prime Minister continued to have a financial link with the Grand-Mère golf club after November 1993. His company was a signatory to the September 1999 agreement.
Article 2.1 of the third document says that once the Akimbo shares are transferred to Michaud, the Prime Minister's company “will no longer have any right of ownership or interest”, I emphasize “or interest in respect of these shares”.
How can the Prime Minister tell us that he had no financial link, nor any interest in respect of the shares, when those interests ended in September 1999, in an agreement which his company signed?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it was an account receivable, and the lawyers wanted to cover all the aspects with respect to any transaction in order to wrap up matters as clearly as possible.
I would say this to the Bloc Quebecois leader. Not so very long ago, the member for Roberval once again said:
Does he not understand that the only way to settle this matter—the only way, there are not 50 of them, only one—is to provide us with the record of sale, as we have demanded so many times already? Let him provide that, and the problem will be over.
This was said in the House on March 15, 2001, which proves that is all they want. They are unable to attack the government—
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, that was because we believed the Prime Minister at the time.
What I am getting at is that when the lawyers have made provision for everything, they have also provided that an interest in the shares remained. They provided for more than that. They provided that the Prime Minister's company would be responsible for compensating Michaud “for damages and costs of any sort”, including article 3.6, “arising from proceedings or inquiries of any nature”.
In other words, through this agreement, the Prime Minister is proving to us that he has every interest in an inquiry not being held, not even in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because his company would have to pay the cost of Michaud's lawyer. That is why he does not want an inquiry.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, like everyone else, the Bloc Quebecois leader has repeatedly asked the ethics counsellor whether there was any conflict of interest. He gave his answer when he appeared before the committees in 1999. Today, the only problem remaining, he said, was the deed of sale. That was tabled today.
What is sad is that, with real problems in the country, this is what the opposition is focusing on. They want to go after the Prime Minister's reputation. The Prime Minister is very well known in this country. There were 172 members—
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the most serious problem in this country is the lack of credibility of its leader.
In order to be complete, the sale documents must be accompanied by the stock certificates, because the sale of shares only actually takes place when the certificates are signed at the back.
Why did the Prime Minister not table the stock certificates with the bill of sale to certify that the shares no longer belonged to him, assuming he endorsed them?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, let it be clear that, at one point, Mr. Prince returned all these documents to the company, to Mr. Michaud. Last week the lawyer clearly stated that a resolution was passed by the company on November 1 saying that I had sold my shares and that a few days later I was no longer a director of that company.
As of November 1, 1993, I and my company had no interest in the company, no connection with the golf club. This is clear, as evidenced by the documents that we tabled today, which is something unprecedented.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister signed away his shares in 1999 as a contracting party, either he never endorsed the stock certificates and always remained the owner since he had not been paid or else he endorsed them and they were returned to him and endorsed again. If that is the case, we would like to know when the Prime Minister became a shareholder again.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there was a debt to be paid. I will quote the hon. member again because he refuses to understand, and we know that opposition parties have a very hard time finding things that are wrong with our government. Again, the member for Roberval said “There is only one thing to do and it is to table the bill of sale”.
This is what we did this morning in front the whole nation. All Canadians are wondering when the opposition will deal with the real issues in this country.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last fall in The Hague the global accord on greenhouse gas reductions went up in smoke due to a major disagreement over the carbon sink concept.
On the one hand we have the Americans tripping through the forest counting the trees as their contribution to greenhouse gas reductions. On the other hand we have Europeans backed by the United Nations climate change panel rejecting the American position as flawed science, as simplistic and short-sighted.
Could the Prime Minister explain why we have the environment minister headed for Latin America to peddle bad science—
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important problem. I am happy to say we want to make sure that not only free trade will be discussed with all the nations of the Americas but that all elements of good government, environment, social problems and education will be part of the discussions.
It is not only about free trade. It is about improving the quality of life of all countries that participate in the negotiations in Quebec next week.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, let us get serious here for a minute. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well the American president has served notice that he has no intention of meeting the U.S. Kyoto commitments.
Why is the government doing the Americans' dirty work? It is bad enough for Canada's reputation as a responsible environmental citizen to be smeared because we refuse to take the lead on tackling greenhouse emissions at source.
Why is the government adding insult to injury by urging the poorest nations of the hemisphere to buy favour on the eve of the FTA summit by associating with the unscientific and irresponsible American position on greenhouse gases?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, the principle of carbon sinks is embedded in the Kyoto protocol itself. The Canadian position with respect to carbon sinks in either agriculture or forestry is squarely based upon sound science.
The hon. gentleman sitting next to the leader of the NDP, coming from Saskatchewan, should know that the very best science in the world on sinks comes from Saskatchewan. He should be proud to stand up for that, to think of the world.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's letter yesterday said that Debbie Weinstein was acting as an officer of J&AC Consultants when she negotiated the final sale of the shares.