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.
Prime MinisterOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. There is a lot of exuberance today, but we have to be able to hear the questions and the answers in case somebody says something that is out of order. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor and the Chair wants to be able to hear.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I will not, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister's letter yesterday said Debbie Weinstein was acting “as an officer of J&AC Consultants” when she negotiated the final sale of the shares. Yet the official corporation profile report of the government of Ontario shows that Ms. Weinstein became an officer of that company only on September 1, 1999, mere weeks before the transaction was completed.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that Ms. Weinstein was acting as his lawyer and his agent in negotiations that began in 1996 and included the period when he made his intervention on behalf of the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I said that she was my trustee with another person, because we all have two trustees for managing our assets. All my personal assets, all the assets that had to be in trust from J&AC, are in trust and she was negotiating. She had the books in her office. She was dealing with that.
She can be a lawyer at the same time as being a trustee, something that probably the leader of the fifth party cannot do. She can chew and walk at the same time.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, she was acting for the Prime Minister on this file at the same time that he intervened with the Auberge Grand-Mère.
Was the Prime Minister consulted or otherwise involved in the decision to appoint Ms. Weinstein, an employee of J&AC Consultants Inc., and why was that decision made so late in the process?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, in November 1993, I put my affairs in the hands of my trustees, who talked with Mr. Wilson, who is responsible for the trusts of all members, ministers and public servants. Ms. Weinstein was always in contact with Mr. Wilson. I am told that she has been a director of the company since 1993, and that can be verified, and she had a clear mandate from me to always follow Mr. Wilson's instructions and advice and she did a very good—
Prime MinisterOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. I am sorry, but we have agreed to certain rules on the time allowed for replies. I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but I did not make these rules.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, even though not all relevant documents were tabled today as the Prime Minister promised yesterday, what was tabled made it clear that Jonas Prince did not accept ownership of the golf course shares until the end of 1999. That was confirmed today by the ethics counsellor.
It was also confirmed that the Prime Minister had a receivable, an asset, and therefore a personal interest in those shares for six years between 1993 and 1999, all during the time he was lobbying—
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it was a clear sale with no relation at all to the shares. From November 1, 1993, I was no longer a shareholder, but what is very preoccupying for opposition members is that for two years they have used smears based on no facts all the time.
They have refused to recognize the truth. They have it now. They are embarrassed and what they should do is apologize, turn the page and deal with the problems of the nation.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said today that there was a debt to be paid. That amounts to an interest.
Why does the Prime Minister not just accept responsibility for leaving himself in a position of an apparent conflict of interest for three years and have the matter settled for Canadians by an independent judicial inquiry?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it was a debt owed to me by Mr. Prince that was paid in 1999.
Now they are always moving the post. I just want again to say the very simple fact. They challenged me here. It was by the member of Edmonton North a few days ago. She said:
The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just tabling his bill of sale for those shares in 1993.
I have done it. They are terribly embarrassed and they should be all ashamed of themselves.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, when a minister of the government finds himself in a potential conflict of interest situation, the Prime Minister, on the advice of his ethics counsellor, decides on the situation and asks the minister to change his behaviour.
In the case of the Auberge Grand-Mère, since the Prime Minister himself is involved, he becomes judge and jury.
How can the Prime Minister allow himself to be the only judge of his behaviour, finding himself not guilty of conflict of interest, when all observers of the political scene think otherwise?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wilson has appeared a number of times before committees and has given all the facts to all the members. This man was the government's assistant deputy registrar, appointed by the previous government, applying rules that existed in 1993.
He never refused to appear before committees. He was on television barely two hours ago, yet they will not accept the truth. All they want is to try to tarnish my reputation, but I know that Canadians know I have served this country for 37 years and have always defended my honour. My father gave me my name.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, in this whole matter involving the Prime Minister directly, is it not time he appeared before his peers on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so his conduct may be judged not by himself, as has been the case up to now, but by persons outside? If he refuses, is it because he is trying to avoid, as section 3.6 of the 1999 agreement provides, responsibility for the costs of representation and defence of the purchaser?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the greatest committee of the House of Commons is the House of Commons itself.
For at least three weeks I have answered hundreds of questions. I have said the same thing all the time. I divested myself of these shares on November 1, 1993, and that was clearly proven with Mr. Wilson's tabling of the conveyance this morning.
Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, today's release of documents raises more questions than answers. We know that the ownership of the golf course shares was in limbo for six long years during the time he lobbied for money for the neighbouring hotel.
Will the Prime Minister not admit that the debt, the dispute over ownership, and his lobbying for the neighbouring property placed him in a conflict of interest?
Prime MinisterOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, documents have been released today, all of which required the consent of the parties to this agreement, including the Prime Minister and others. Some 11 documents in total have been released by the ethics counsellor.
The ethics counsellor has made very clear in his release of these documents that they make absolutely clear that post-November 1993 the Prime Minister has not owned the shares of the golf course and, more to the point, that Mr. Prince has owned these shares as he has acknowledged in the document.
The leader of the Conservative Party can stand, puff out his cheeks, turn red and look outraged, but he cannot change the facts.
Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor today refused to release some of the most important documents, the share registry of 161341 Canada Inc., but he did disclose that the Canada Business Corporations Act was broken, even though both the Prime Minister and Jonas Prince are corporate lawyers and know the requirements of the law.
Why is this department going to change the record to suit the Prime Minister's version of the facts?
Prime MinisterOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, we have two leaders in the House, one of whom has cost the taxpayers of Alberta $800,000 and taken a $70,000 contribution from the firm that defended him, and the other leader who saw his leadership disappear with German money involved in his leadership convention. Both of them, if they wanted to investigate conspiracies, should look in their own backyards, not across the floor of the House.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, the famous 1993 contract through which the Prime Minister claimed he had got rid of his shares has finally been released. There is no clause indicating that, even in the event of non-payment, the Prime Minister could not resume ownership of his shares, unless he had endorsed the share certificates.
Why has the ethics counsellor stated that the Prime Minister absolutely could not take back his shares in the event of non-payment, while it appears obvious that he did not endorse his certificates, thus completing the transfer?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I read in this morning's La Presse that a legal expert, Paul Martel, has made the following statement: “Even if shares are not paid for, the purchaser becomes the owner, according to the Civil Code. Once the sale is concluded, the parties cannot change their minds without going before a judge to get the sale cancelled”.
This is an opinion given by a lawyer to a La Presse reporter, and certainly for my benefit. This is a man who knows his law. When there is a sale, the sale is effected at the time the two parties give their consent.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister's participation in the 1999 agreement as a contracting party not confirmation that the Prime Minister still had a direct ownership tie to his shares and that, by stating otherwise, he and his ethics counsellor have misled the entire House of Commons?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have to keep repeating the same thing. My apologies to the Liberal MPs, who are ladies and gentlemen showing a great deal of patience with the irresponsibility of the opposition, when they would prefer to discuss real problems.
For the thousandth time, I repeat: I sold my shares on November 1, 1993; the record of sale was tabled here this morning. We were owed money, most of which was collected in 1999. We gained nothing. We acted in the interest of the constituents of the riding of Saint-Maurice, by creating jobs in a riding with one of the highest rates of unemployment in Canada.
Standing Committee On Industry, Science And TechnologyOral Question Period
Canadian Alliance
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the standing committee on industry, which has been tasked by the standing orders of the House to examine the ethics counsellor and the operations of the Canada Business Corporations Act.
This morning she ruled out of order a motion to call Mr. Jonas Prince to committee, a man whose testimony pertains to the act and the ethics of the government. Why did the chair deny democracy in order to protect the Prime Minister?
Standing Committee On Industry, Science And TechnologyOral Question Period
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member who asked the question and the entire House know the rules of the House.
They know very well that this excellent chair of the standing committee, supported by all members of the House, rendered excellent decisions in ensuring that the work of the committee was properly done. I wish hon. members across had similar interests at heart.