Mr. Speaker, it is because it is full of contradictions. The Deputy Prime Minister should take a look at the 1999 agreement.
Article 2.1 provides that the Prime Minister waives his ownership rights over the shares. This means he had to have them in order to sell them. Under article 2.2, he provides the seller's guarantee. Again, something must be sold in order to provide such a guarantee. Under article 2.3, he waives his right to any recourse, while in article 3.6 he says “I will pay if there are legal proceedings against Michaud”.
In other words, his friend Michaud is saying to him “I am prepared to give you money, Mr. Prime Minister, but I am not prepared to pay for your mistakes”.
In light of all this, how can we not conclude that a conflict of interest exists?