Debates of April 3rd, 2001

Points Of Order

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say that it was a false accusation that was placed on me. I would like to give notice of a future point of privilege.

[The Speaker]

I guess we will hear about it as a question of privilege later.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect your ruling that this is a matter of debate rather than a point of order.

Let me say, for greater certainty, to the member opposite that I stand by the statement that the member made an allegation about a public servant and had to publicly apologize for that allegation under threat of a lawsuit. That being said, whether or not it finally ever went to court I do not know. I do know she withdrew her allegation and apologized for it.

[The Speaker]

Perhaps that clarifies the matter. I do not know. I do know that it appears to be a matter of debate. My original views on this are confirmed and perhaps we can move on.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny, but I just got the minister's last point. He did use the word slander pretty clearly. They toss it around fairly freely.

During question period the Prime Minister got up and gave a good rant. He said that we should get back to the real problems of the country. Do members know the real problems of the country? One problem is the lack of integrity in the very Prime Minister's office. That is exactly what we are paying attention to today.

The Prime Minister can huff and puff and say that the golf course had no financial relations with the inn, but there are in fact a number of contradictions. The bill of sale, I think, is the most important one. I find it quite hard to believe that a couple of lawyers actually signed that bill of sale.

I am just a humble English teacher reading this handwriting, but it is hard to imagine that a couple of lawyers tossed this together. With regard to the Prime Minister's name, which appears here, although of course I cannot read it, he has signed his whole name and at the bottom he has signed his initials. The J and the C are completely different from the J and the C at the top of the document.

I could ask my questions from question period again because they did not get answered. Who was at the signing of this document and in what province was it actually signed? In other words, where were the signatories? The Prime Minister did say Ottawa. We will certainly be checking that out. Dear knows where Jonas was on that day. We will track him too.

On the bill of sale there is no letterhead, witness, authorization, notarization or corporate seal. There is absolutely nothing about any sort of deposit.

Mr. Speaker, if you sold any golf course shares you might happen to have, I doubt if you would put the following on the bill of sale: payment schedule B as follows, principal payments in four equal annual instalments with interest at the institutional first mortgage rates. That was in 1993, as the Prime Minister continues to swear up and down.

You know, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you have read these files, that there was no payment in November 1994, no payment in November 1995 and it went on and on. Absolutely nothing was paid for. In fact we know Jonas Prince wanted to make sure he got out of the deal and someone else bought it.

This bill of sale looks most suspicious when we look at the fact that it is even handwritten. I would guess that one of those paper napkins is kind of hard to get through the typewriter or computer printer. I know that certainly somebody somewhere, if this was actually official in November 1993, would have been able to put it together better.

We see this whole thing ramping up, as the press has mentioned. I will end my remarks by talking about Warren Kinsella, who was the operative for the Prime Minister during the campaign. He was writing a document and a message went around about it just last weekend. When the report from Warren Kinsella came out there was a directive that said the article “Must appear in all CanWest papers.” If there was ever anyone who was just getting into the fray and thinking that he was going to defend the Prime Minister, it only thickens the plot and puts the Prime Minister deeper into the glue. There is only one way out of this and that is an independent inquiry so the Prime Minister can prove once and for all, if he is clean, that he is clean.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not defending anybody. What I am doing is simply clarifying the record. Sadly enough we have come to a situation today where we have aspersions being cast by that side of the House that are completely unfounded and inaccurate. It really bothers me that the level of debate in the House has sunk to the level that it has today with the opposition Alliance bringing forth these heinous accusations.

I sat and listened to the member for Edmonton North, who made a couple of disturbing statements in the House today. It was something along the lines—I tried to write it down but she was speaking very quickly out of both sides of her mouth so it was difficult to get it down verbatim—of “they have no trust in what he says”. I assume she was referring to Canadians when she said they.

Let us examine the record. We have a man who has dedicated 38 years of his life to Canada, to federalism and to raising the quality of life for all Canadians. On three separate occasions Canadians have shown their support and confidence in this individual and this party by electing three successive majority governments. We have to extrapolate on that and keep in mind that as a result of those three successive majorities, we have three successive defeats on that side of the House.

Now we can get to the point. They are personalizing, nothing more, based on the losses they have experienced three elections in a row.

My point for the member for Edmonton North is simply to remind her of and ask her to comment on the following. In 1996 she attended in my riding and made a very clear statement that she felt it was a disgrace and absolutely ridiculous that Liberal members of parliament would accept a parliamentary pension from the House. She said that and said she would never do it. She said her party would never do it. Here we stand when she has in fact done the complete opposite. Who can Canadians trust? Can they trust somebody who went on television and on air and made a commitment and backtracked on it, or a government that has offered good governance to the country for the last seven years?

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started his remarks by saying he is not defending anybody. I can understand why he would not want to defend anyone: the Prime Minister.

I mentioned in my remarks that people have no trust in what he says. I think the member was right when he said that Canadians are frustrated with this. I am sure he would be stunned and surprised to learn that recent polls show that 54% of people who support the Liberal Party want an absolute and objective inquiry.

I know he has been exorcised, but let me address the pension issue. I was in the member's riding in 1996, and have been to lots of places across the country, to address the fact that when I opted out of the MP pension plan I was perfectly happy to continue contributing to RRSPs for the rest of my life. However the member knows, as all hon. members know, that as a result of negotiations last spring the Liberal Party put every member of parliament back into the pension plan, including myself. Because I now must pay premiums into the MP pension plan I can no longer contribute to my RRSPs. He could perhaps mention that to the people back home.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a brief question to bring some focus back to the debate.

It is unfortunate that we have seen these personal jibes going on here for the past number of hours. However to get to the point of the motion, the evidence is mounting. There is sufficient reason to take it out of the bear pit that is the House of Commons and put it into the hands of an impartial and objective forum.

I strongly suggest that the only way to bring closure to the issue is to remove the partisanship and give the issue to a judicial or public inquiry. Would the hon. member not agree that would be ample opportunity for the Prime Minister to exonerate himself? If there is compelling evidence to suggest there was no conflict, such a non-partisan forum would be an ideal way to establish the truth.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is probably the best thing. There is bitter partisanship on the other side of the House and on this side too. The best way to deal with the issue is to take it out of this place, because this is where politics reign.

I was attacked about the pension. I find it strange when someone talks about going back on their word. There was a little promise about scrapping, killing and abolishing the GST. There was a little something about the Airbus affair. It was a messy thing, was it not? It seems very strange that the member here is not even in his seat but is wandering all over the Chamber hurling insults. If the shoe fits he should wear it.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by my party today, although it is not a pleasure to speak about its content. We need to set the record straight. We were forced into this debate by the actions of the Liberals and the Prime Minister.

That is unfortunate because the personal ethics of most people would have ensured that the issue was answered in an open and transparent manner two years ago. The official opposition has been following the issue for two years. Many are appalled by that delay and the cover-up it has produced. I say appalled because the issue could have been a simple acknowledgement and resolution by the Prime Minister when it first became public knowledge.

Members on the other side of the House have gone on at great length today to argue that this is nothing but a smoke and mirrors show. They say that there is nothing of substance involved and that the Prime Minister's reputation has been needlessly sullied. I agree that it is a smoke and mirrors show, with a little fog thrown in for good measure. Unfortunately the smoke, mirrors and fog have all emanated from the seats opposite.

Government members have cried out that a non-issue has hijacked the business of the House of Commons. What utter nonsense. If there is no business in the House the government must bear full responsibility. Indeed, when there is business in the House it is often hard to get the Liberals to attend. Witness the fiasco of last Thursday.

It is indeed a sad day when the House of Commons must debate an issue that calls into question not only the person of the Prime Minister but the reputation of the office itself.

I and many Canadians from all walks of life, all regions of this great country and all political stripes, question the ability of the government and the Prime Minister to govern in an open and accountable manner. The truth must be found and it must be spoken. It has been lacking in this matter for some time.

Members opposite can bluster all they want. They can cite old polls and make widespread pronouncements, but the facts are undeniable. According to the latest Compas poll 85% of Canadians feel it is important to get to the bottom of the issue. Sixty-three per cent of those polled believe the Prime Minister's conduct was wrong when he sought money for a business in Shawinigan in which he is accused of having a financial interest.

Canadians are an intelligent and reasoned electorate. They know the issues and they want clarity. Perhaps most telling are the 91% of people who feel it is important for the Prime Minister to behave in ways that appear fair. Therein lies the nub of the problem. There is not the appearance of fairness. There is in fact the appearance of unfairness.

The facts clearly indicate that there is at least the appearance of a serious conflict of interest and that in all likelihood the House has been misled.

These allegations must be cleared before the government regains the moral right to govern the people. Based on the actions of junior and senior ministers in the past weeks and months, I believe I have the right to say this in the House today. When deliberate misrepresentations are made in the House and remain unpunished by the Prime Minister, I am reminded of the adage that leaders must lead by example. Canadians and members of parliament are being offered an unfortunate example of leadership.

All the foregoing has happened today because of certain factors: a complete lack of accountability on the part of the government; the unprecedented use of closure; the dictatorial running of the House and its members by the Prime Minister and his unelected, unaccountable advisers; and the untenable centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office that began over 30 years ago under Prime Minister Trudeau when the current Prime Minister was cutting his teeth in federal politics.

There has been talk of parliamentary reform. Frankly talk is cheap. It is time for all members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, to reclaim their government. The government of this great country should not be controlled by a handful of people who surround the Prime Minister. That is not what the Fathers of Confederation intended the government of the country to be.

Reform of the House of Commons must begin, and it must begin with us. We desperately need an ethics counsellor who is a true watchdog and not a lapdog for the Prime Minister. What person in his or her right and free thinking mind would accept that a person who is appointed by and reports to the Prime Minister would be able to give a full and complete disclosure of the Prime Minister's actions? Members here can reclaim the integrity of the House, but only if they shake off their leashes and muzzles and relearn the ability to think for themselves.

Reform of the House must also extend to the committee level where MPs are supposed to be masters of their own destiny. Instead we regularly see the chair and the parliamentary secretary act on behalf of the minister's office. Why? Simply put, there is an insatiable desire for power and control at every level. The Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to absorb every last control lever into the Prime Minister's Office.

The end result of this exorbitant power grab is a government that acts as if it is above the rules, regulations and laws of the country. What an appalling disgrace. We have seen a pattern develop over the years. We have seen the flimsy excuses used in the Human Resources Development Canada debacle. We have found that HRDC had secret slush funds used by and for ministerial special requests. Canadians are greatly concerned about the government's lack of forthrightness and clarity.

I have a recommendation for government members. They should stop paying lip service to parliamentary reform and make it a reality before it is too late for the country. They should start today.

My colleagues in the House and Canadians across the country want only to know the truth behind Shawinigate. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide or be ashamed of then let us set the record straight. If there is substance behind the facts then corrective actions must be taken. We simply want to know the truth.

Ethics and accountability must start somewhere. Frankly it must start at the top. We as a nation need accountability in our government and Prime Minister. Sadly, at this time millions of Canadians do not see accountability at our highest levels.

When the Prime Minister is under a shroud of discrepancy and double talk, what are we as parliamentarians and Canadians to expect from those around us?

The big questions remain: Where do we go from here? How do we get there? I think all hon. members of the House would agree that we need to put an end to the issue. No one, including opposition members, wants to carry this further than necessary. However the issue is before us and we must find a plan to bring closure to it.

In so doing we must put the office of the Prime Minister ahead of the man who currently occupies it. The office has been here longer than any of us and will continue longer than any of us. The reputation of the office has been sullied and we must collectively renew it. It goes far beyond partisan values and attacks. The office depends on the goodwill of the public for its preservation.

We come to today's motion calling for an independent judicial inquiry. Sadly the question is not only before the House but on the minds of the majority of Canadians. In order to fully answer the question of impropriety we must have someone in charge who is viewed by all Canadians as honourable, above reproach and impartial.

Sixty per cent of Canadians believe parliament should create an independent judicial inquiry to get to the facts behind Shawinigate. To deny today's motion would raise further questions about the Prime Minister's dealings.

If there is nothing to hide, why have the past two years continued to bring additional facts forward? Why has the Prime Minister not been able to provide clear and concise evidence to clear his reputation? If the government and Prime Minister have nothing to hide they will not object to a public inquiry.

Actions must be taken that will resolve the issue once and for all. If the Prime Minister is innocent of wrongdoing then I call upon him to endorse today's motion. If there is independence among government backbenchers then I call upon them to move beyond partisanship and deal with the bigger question of the integrity of the Prime Minister's Office.

I call upon all members of parliament to seek an answer to the question: What is in the best interests of Canadians?

If members believe like I do that it is in the best interests of Canadians to find a clear and concise end to the issue then I urge them to vote in favour of today's motion. Let us get this thing cleared up. Let us have an independent judicial inquiry.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from my colleague. The House of Commons is the highest court in the land. We have debated this issue day in and day out, month in and month out, on a regular basis. Today in the House we are listening to my colleagues on the opposition side try to put on record any kind of evidence that would suggest the Prime Minister has done anything other than serve his constituents in the Grand-Mère affair.

The day we as members of parliament stop calling and writing on our constituents' behalf to the administration in the Government of Canada, the private sector, banks, crown corporations or whomever, none of us will get elected. Would my colleague not agree with that? Our job as members of parliament is to stand up for our constituents and act on their behalf. The day I stop doing that is the day I should stop serving as a member of parliament. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done to create jobs in his constituency and defend the interests of his constituents.

I am not interested in seeing another public inquiry waste millions of dollars and at the end of the day hear nothing new other than what we have read in the National Post and heard from some of my colleagues. It has added nothing to the debate and has only wasted the time of the House of Commons and of Canadians.

Eighty-one per cent of Canadians are telling us to move on and talk about issues that are important to them such as softwood lumber, farming, fisheries and the economy. Those are the issues that are important to Canadians and the issues they want us to talk about. For the public interest, we should move on. We should have the debate today, vote on it and then kill the issue. We can then begin to talk about the issues that are important to Canadians. That is what they elected us for. We had an election on this issue. The people have voted and they told the Prime Minister that they trust him. Does he not agree?

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was really something. I am glad to see the hon. member continue his passion inside the House of Commons as he certainly does outside the House.

I find the member's comments very strange. I agree with him that this is the highest court of the land. However, he has been a member of a government that has been in power since 1993 and, over that period of time, the measures that his government has or has not taken in the House has led to a continual decline in the power of parliament to be the lawmakers of the land. How many times have we seen this government fail to take a stand on an issue that concerns the Canadian public and, instead of bringing in legislation, it sends it to the courts? The courts have now become the highest law of the land. That is an absolute disgrace. It denigrates the kind of influence that we as members of parliament have in this place.

This government has been responsible for that decline and it is only the Canadian Alliance, along with other opposition parties, that have brought some power back into parliament in order to take action against this kind of government.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe North.

These last few months, Canadians have witnessed a most degrading spectacle in the House of Commons, the spectacle of a bitter opposition that has no ideas or constructive solutions to offer and that has totally dropped public policy issues to engage in a relentless smear campaign against one person in particular.

At a time when Canadians want to hear about the state of the economy, the opposition is obsessed with the Prime Minister's personal finances. At a time when Canadians want to know the position of their federal parties on the future of health care services, on support for families and children, on the status of the environment and on the impact of globalization and of the new economy, the opposition is obsessed with inventing allegations, which are becoming sillier and sillier, about a most ordinary commercial transaction which was conducted, from beginning to end, in full compliance with the spirit and the letter of the ministers' conflict of interest code.

Hiding behind the immunity allowing MPs to speak freely in the House of Commons, members of the opposition have made countless unjustified allegations, cast silly innuendoes and tarnished the reputation not only of the Prime Minister and his family, but of all the people who reviewed the facts and cleared him of any wrongdoing. They even questioned the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Why? They did it because, as the member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister made representations to the Business Development Bank of Canada to secure a loan for a hotel that created jobs for 20 of his constituents, the Auberge Grand-Mère.

This hotel is located beside the Grand-Mère golf club, which has new owners and in which the Prime Minister ceased to have any financial interest before taking on his current responsibilities.

His trustee and lawyer, in close consultation with the federal ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, worked on the recovery of a debt resulting from the sale of his shares in the golf club. Let me repeat that this sale occurred before he became Prime Minister and that it was exempt of all debt and charges, as the documents show. His shares never came back in his ownership or control.

Promoting economic development and job creation for one's constituents is the first priority of all members.

I am working tirelessly so that my constituents in Laval East will have good jobs in the future, and I make sure we get our fair share of any federal help for this. The Prime Minister did the same thing.

People in the Saint-Maurice riding have had high unemployment for a long time. The Prime Minister, in his capacity as member for Saint-Maurice, local municipalities, businesses, and the Quebec government consulted together and decided to give this region a key promotional tool, tourism, to build a better economic future.

The Prime Minister made sure that his constituency would get federal assistance to support many legitimate tourist projects, and that is perfectly appropriate. The same thing occurs in every riding in Canada faced with a similar economic situation. This was his only concern when he supported the expansion project for the Auberge Grand-Mère.

The ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, has repeatedly reviewed the sale of the golf club and the Prime Minister's contacts with the Business Development Bank of Canada. He concluded there was no conflict of interest, but that is not what the opposition wanted to hear.

Therefore, it launched a spiteful and bitter attack against the Prime Minister and against the integrity of Mr. Wilson, an outstanding civil servant and a world renowned expert in public ethics.

The opposition asked the RCMP to conduct an investigation. Again, it cleared the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing. The results of the investigation were also rejected by the opposition, which irresponsibly questioned the integrity of the RCMP.

When, in an extraordinary and unprecedented move, the Prime Minister allowed the ethics counsellor to release private documents to prove, without any reasonable doubt, that there was no conflict of interest, the opposition asked for even more documents. As usual, it attacked the integrity of the Prime Minister's trustee and of the person who bought the Prime Minister's shares in the golf club.

The Prime Minister has been sitting in this parliament for 38 years. Throughout the years, he has upheld strict personal integrity standards. During most of his years here in Ottawa, he held key positions of trust in cabinet. Never has there been a whiff of scandal while he carried out his duties.

What our government and our Prime Minister want, first and foremost, is to preserve the confidence of the Canadian public. As far as we are concerned, integrity is more than a nice principle, it is our ideal. It is a way of life. It is the basis of our whole action.

We believe that trust in institutions is as vital for democracy as the air we breath is for us. Once trust is destroyed, it becomes difficult and sometimes impossible to rebuild. Once trust is lost, the system can no longer function.

Under the Mulroney administration, Canadians came to believe that public officials placed their personal financial interest before the public interest. It was precisely to put an end to that perception that the Prime Minister established the office of ethics counsellor in 1994.

The Prime Minister often told us that, very early in his life, his father taught him that a good reputation was more precious than wealth, social position, glory or celebrity. In the end, it is the only thing we really own. It cannot be sold nor exchanged and, once it is lost, it is lost for good.

He made that the creed of his political life. He made it a standard and an example for the members of his government. This is why not a single minister of his cabinet has ever had to resign because of a conflict of interest.

Given the high office to which he was elected and the irreproachable uprightness of his personal conduct, the Prime Minister deserves better than being the target of a deluge of unfounded allegations and slander.

What is more, Canadians deserve better than that. They have a government which is determined to deal with real needs, needs and challenges of interest to Canadians, and they deserve to have an opposition which is prepared to do the same.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, I believe my colleague went a little overboard when she said that the opposition did not address this issue.

She forgets, for example, that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development unanimously passed a motion, to which the Liberals contributed, calling for more changes to be made to the employment insurance plan and that they would be proposed by June 1.

I could also mention the very positive remarks made by the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie concerning international child abduction, and those by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm on young offenders. So, when they say that all the opposition is talking about is the inquiry, I think we are quite capable of doing two things at the same time.

But where I totally disagree is when they say that Canadians are fed up with this issue. According to polls, more that 50% of Canadians want an inquiry, as requested by the opposition, so that all the light be shed on this issue.

Have more questions not been raised this week, since the documents were made public, than before?

How can the government say that there was no conflict of interest when, in the documents made public, we learn that if there is ever an inquiry, it will be J&AC Consultants Inc., the PM's main company, that will bear the costs of this inquiry? Is this not a cut and dry instance of conflict of interest?

Should the hon. member not admit that the integrity of the Prime Minister is being called into question, but that he himself fuelling arguments against him on a daily basis by refusing to go to the bottom of the issue and to put in place what Canadians are asking for?

Tomorrow, when we vote on the motion, those who will represent the will of the majority of Canadians will not be the Liberal majority, which will vote against the motion, but those who have the support of more than 50% of Canadians calling for a public inquiry to take this issue out of this House and let the light be made on the whole issue outside oral question period, where questions are a mere 30 or 35 seconds long and answers just as short. The integrity of the Prime Minister is at stake, and so is that of the entire political system.

In concluding, when the hon. member reads a testimony like that of Yvon Duhaime, which has been published in Le Soleil last week end, where he said that there was a direct link between the economic activity of the Auberge Grand-Mère and the golf club, and when we see that the Prime Minister would have to pay legal fees if there was an inquiry, would she not agree that the motion is very appropriate and that it would shed light on a situation that has been kept in the dark by the Prime Minister for much too long?

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite has been reading the newspapers too much and not been meeting enough with his constituents.

My constituents are asking me “When is the opposition going to move to other things? We have problems in our ridings. Our families need money, children are left out. There are numerous problems”. This is what we are told.

I think that reading the newspapers too much these days is just what the opposition wants.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. There are important issues that should be debated and that have been debated in the House. Important votes have also been held.

I ask the member, as well as the minister of agriculture, just what happened. Where was the integrity? Why were members not standing up for farmers when I brought forward, along with my leader, a vote in the House to give farmers another $400 million?

Member after member stood on that side of the House saying that they supported farmers and that they wanted them to get that $400 million. How did she vote on that issue and does she not feel we were doing our job?

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer by saying that the assistance provided to Canadian farmers was the result of pressure from the Liberal caucus, not from the opposition.

Since the November 27 election, at every caucus meeting I have attended, members on this side of the House, of the Liberal Party, have been imploring the government to help farmers. It is not the pressure from the opposition—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are again on an opposition day motion. We are talking about an issue that has been around for two years. It has been through the scrutiny of the ethics counsellor, through an election campaign and through an RCMP review. Through all that time no one was able to make a case to justify that the Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest.

The Prime Minister has tabled personal documents in the House. That is a precedent which to my knowledge has never been done in the history of parliament. We have been through all that and yet when the Canadian Alliance has an opportunity to choose the topic of debate in the House, to have a meaningful debate on issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, we talk about Shawinigate.

I have a headline from the editorial of the April 12 Orillia Packet & Times which reads “Shawinigate obsession is getting tired”. It goes on to say to the opposition that it is time to move on. There is nothing there. Why does it keep tying up the business of the nation dealing with an issue when there is no case to be made?

We know why. It is really a contest between the Progressive Conservative Party and its leader who has championed this obsession and has carried it forward. The Canadian Alliance leader was a little distracted for a while with some of his own personal problems, but now he is into the contest.

Why? It is very clear. The media has widely reported that Bay Street has said to the right and the righter party that it would cut off their financing if they do not get together. There is a contest between the right and the righter party to try to get themselves together, so they are trying to outdo one another.

This has expanded into an unholy alliance with the Bloc Quebecois and to a certain degree the NDP. The NDP is trying to play both sides because if there is any mileage to be made, it wants to be seen to be part of the coalition. If it backfires, as I am sure it will, then it wants to keep its distance. The NDP is playing it particularly cozy.

We have to look at the facts and they are very clear. Opposition members said that if they were told who the fourth shareholder was they would drop the matter. We know who the fourth shareholder is and it is not the Prime Minister. However they did not drop the matter.

Opposition members said that if they had the documents and the bill of sale they would drop the matter. The bill of sale was tabled and still the matter has not been dropped. They do not want to drop the matter because they want to play politics with the issue.

The opposition wants to sully the reputation of the Prime Minister, a man who has been in public service for 38 years without any hint of a scandal. It wants to sully his reputation for purely crass and political purposes. That is a disgrace to the whole House. That is something Canadians recognize and they know full well that it is not what it should be.

The opposition then said that it would look at the documents and the bill of sale. However it criticized the bill of sale. It said that there was no date, location or seal on it, et cetera. By law it is not needed. Shares can be sold on a verbal contract.

All discussion on the bill of sale becomes irrelevant because we have the letter from the corporate solicitors for 161341 Canada Inc., the company that owns the golf course. The letter was tabled in the industry committee on March 20 and it states:

On November 1, 1993, the board approved the transfer to Akimbo Development Corporation of all the company shares held by J&AC Consultants Inc. Since that time, J&AC Consultants Inc. no longer appears in resolutions by the company shareholders, and—

The Prime Minister's name appears here.

—no longer appears in resolutions by the company directors;

That is corroboration that the shares were transferred and that they were acknowledged by the corporation in a resolution. That letter comes from the corporate solicitors.

The opposition will now take the position that those solicitors are either incompetent, dishonest, in the pocket of the Prime Minister, or smoking dope. Opposition members will find some way of discrediting the corporate solicitors because they have not told the opposition what it wants to hear. It is clear that nothing will satisfy the opposition.

The motion put forward by the opposition today calls for an independent inquiry. Even if it got an independent inquiry, I am sure those members would say that it was not done properly and whoever was appointed was not the right person and so on.

In our legal system there is the onus of proof. There is no onus to prove oneself innocent. The onus is on the person making the allegation of a conflict of interest to show some evidence. In this case we have been through the process for two full years and no one has been able to make the case that there is any evidence whatsoever of a conflict of interest.

What we have is a debt. The Prime Minister sold his shares. It was an unsecured debt. Mr. Prince owed the Prime Minister some money. The Prime Minister or his company retained no interest in those shares. They had no right to retake the shares regardless of what happened to the value of the shares in the golf course. If the golf course went bankrupt or if the shares tripled in value, the Prime Minister was only entitled to collect his original debt.

We see that the Prime Minister's trustee was involved in trying to collect on the debt. As part of the settlement on the debt there was a repurchase of the shares by someone else from Akimbo. We have evidence that shows that Mr. Prince was mistaken in law in thinking he had an option. He acknowledged in one of the subsequent agreements that he obtained a legal opinion that convinced him. I do not know why that would not satisfy the opposition, but it convinced Mr. Prince that he was mistaken in law and that he did retain the shares, so he resold them.

Opposition members quibble about the wording of the release clauses in the agreement or the indemnification clauses. They say there is a double conflict of interest because the Prime Minister's company said that if they dragged it into court it would be indemnified for its legal costs through the whole process. That is a standard legal agreement on any settlement.

As a solicitor I have signed many releases on behalf of clients or prepared them for clients. There is always an indemnification clause in any settlement agreement. It is a normal legal practice, yet the opposition continues to ask questions, et cetera.

The question comes down to what would be gained by having an independent inquiry that the opposition is requesting by the motion. I submit that nothing would be gained. A lot of public money would be spent when we should be dealing with more important issues.

Members throughout the debate have mentioned the question of the vote last Thursday when the opposition moved adjournment of the House. The government was responsible for not maintaining quorum and the House adjourned. Opposition members have not only been wasting the House's time in question period by dominating this one issue but they have also been wasting the time of the House by bringing in mischievous motions of adjournment when we should be dealing with the business of the nation.

I said to my constituents that as part of the government I assume responsibility for not being there to protect Canadians from the mischief of the opposition. I assume that responsibility, but I assure the House I will not permit the mischief of the opposition to carry the day on this motion. I am sure this side will vote against the motion so that we can get on with the business of the nation.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member does not fully understand what is at the root of the motion and what Canadians are asking us to do in this place.

Canadians have made far too many connections between government grants and moneys on the one hand going to parties and then those parties giving money back to either the Liberal Party or to an individual member. There is a definite connection.

The Liberal Party of Canada accepted a donation from a trade group in Shawinigan, Quebec, which happens to be near the Prime Minister's riding and was living off a $2.5 million grant from the federal government. Then the group made a donation to the Liberal Party for whatever.

Canadians see a connection with this type of activity where taxpayer money goes to someone and then flows back to the government. That is the point I want to make and I would like the member to answer this question. Does he not see something wrong with that?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people make donations to all political parties, but the issue is not who made a donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The allegation is that the Prime Minister had a financial interest in the golf course when a loan was made to an abutting business. That is a stretch anyway. If the Prime Minister had an interest in the golf course, which he legally did not, the whole premise of the allegation of a conflict of interest would be a major stretch.

The golf course had its own 19th hole, bar and dining room. The dining room and the bar at the auberge were in competition with the golf course. If the Prime Minister had an interest, the case is far from made as the auberge was a competitor.

The member raises the question of political donations. We could get into that. We could talk about $70,000 given to the Canadian Alliance from a law firm in Calgary, but I do not really want to talk about it.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to get back to the point the member spoke about: the mischievous and frivolous motions our party brings forward to the House. He was making specific reference to the adjournment motion last week.

Some 95 of the 172 Liberals who were elected to the House were here to vote on that motion. There was a photograph in the newspaper that showed cabs receiving instructions to turn around to bring Liberal members back to the House instead of heading for the airport. They were disappearing right after question period on Thursday afternoon.

If those members think that leaving here at 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon is not frivolous, then why are they complaining about the vote we called in the House and they could not even show up. Their responsibility was to be here but they were heading to the airport to go home for the long weekend. He thinks that this is a frivolous motion. Why does the member think that way?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it is a frivolous motion and it is mischievous. Why would anyone bring a motion to adjourn and then take great delight in the fact that it was not thwarted? This comes from a party where one of the first acts of its new leader was to say that the House should sit four days a week not five. Maybe some folks do not disagree with that. However, why be so mischievous as to bring a motion and then blame the other side for not voting it down. The Canadian people do not go for that kind of nonsense. They can see through that.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that member, as well as others before him, continually use the term ethics commissioner, which, as we know, has much greater power than an ethics counsellor. The person we have at the present is an ethics counsellor. Why do they deliberately use the other term which is not the correct one?