Debates of April 3rd, 2001

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time in this debate with my friend and House leader, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I very much regret having to join in this debate today on an issue that, as the leader of the New Democratic Party has just said, could have been resolved months ago, years ago, by the Prime Minister simply declaring the truth, not part of the truth but the whole truth. This may well have started as a simple error in judgment by the Prime Minister. If so, he should have had the courage to stand at the time and tell the truth to the people of Canada and to the House of Commons.

What has become so offensive since then has been the consistent attempt at cover up, the lack of information given to the House, the partial information that has been given to the House, and the attempt to try to stifle democracy on this issue.

The issue is conflict of interest. Did the Prime Minister have a continuing financial interest in the Grand-Mère Golf Club at the same time as he was lobbying the Business Development Bank for the adjacent Auberge Grand-Mère, a hotel that has inextricably close linked interests with the golf course?

I just happen to have a copy of the advertisements issued currently by the Auberge Grand-Mère.

The advertisement, which is in French, says that the Auberge Grand-Mère is a mere two minutes from the Grand-Mère golf club.

The auberge and the golf club are adjacent to one another. The viability and success of one affect the viability and success of the other. The market value of one has a direct impact on the market value of the other. Each promotes the other. The auberge's advertising offers golf and overnight accommodation packages. The golf club reserves banquets and dinners at the auberge after golf tournaments. The auberge's advertising talks about the 18-hole Grand-Mère golf course.

Yvon Duhaime, the present owner of the Grand-Mère golf club, is very certain that the auberge and the golf club are interdependent. Last November, when Yvon Duhaime appeared before the Régie des alcools du Québec to defend his case, he said that he needed a liquor licence because many golfers dined at the auberge following their golf tournaments and that most of the auberge's revenue came from clients who had purchased the golf package and from clients who were tourists.

The press also published Mr. Duhaime's comments to the effect that there had been “agreements, deposits and contracts” between the auberge and its clients.

Furthermore, in 1999, Mr. Duhaime said: “We send people over to them to play golf, and they send people over to us for supper. What is there to explain? If it were not profitable, would we keep on doing it”?

The Prime Minister claims to have sold his shares in the golf club in 1993. By 1996 he was not paid for those shares. No payment, no sale. At that time he started to lobby the Business Development Bank for loans for the adjoining auberge while his lawyer acting as his agent was trying actively to sell the shares of the golf club at the very same time.

The value of the golf club shares depended on the successful business of the adjoining auberge. The debt owed to the Prime Minister constituted a continuing financial interest in the golf club. The lobbying of the president of the Business Development Bank was a conflict of interest.

The Prime Minister's statement of disclosure to the ethics counsellor was made under the 1985 code of conflict. Section 24 of the 1985 code states:

A public office holder shall make a confidential report to the ADRG (Assistant Deputy Registrar General) of all assets that are not exempt assets as described in section 19.

The debt or the shares, whichever the Prime Minister claims he had at the time, should have been declared to the ethics counsellor. It was a declarable asset. The definition of assets in the new code brought in by the Prime Minister states clearly assets that are not exempt assets are either declarable assets or controlled assets.

Under either code the Prime Minister should have declared the golf club shares or the debt arising from their sale. He did neither.

The Prime Minister has stated that he has released all the relevant documents. Yet the more documents that are released, the more questions are raised.

The handwritten bill of sale is not witnessed. The repayment schedule is not set out. We do not know what province it was signed in.

Where the note was signed is critical if the Prime Minister chose to sue for non-payment of the contract, because the law is different in different provinces. In Quebec one has three years from the date of signature, while in Ontario one has six years. However, the government refuses to answer this, as it refuses to answer most questions.

The value of the shares has fluctuated. We know from the documents released that the Prime Minister received less in 1999 than what he agreed to with Jonas Prince in 1993. A question: when did the Prime Minister declare the disposition of the shares on his income tax? Was it in 1993 or was it in 1999? This is a very germane issue. Was the Prime Minister informed of Mr. Claude Gauthier's purchase of land from the golf club? Was he, or his lawyer, consulted as to how the $525,000 paid by Mr. Gauthier, who became a serial recipient of government contracts, would be distributed to shareholders or used by the company?

These and many other questions remain unanswered.

A public inquiry, under the auspices of the Inquiries Act, would be able to subpoena witnesses and gather evidence, including financial and income tax records. A public inquiry would be able to determine in an independent fashion if the Prime Minister was in a real or apparent conflict of interest when he lobbied the president of the Business Development Bank on behalf of the Auberge Grand-Mère.

In the Sinclair Stevens commission of inquiry, Justice Parker defined conflict of interest as the following:

A real conflict of interest denotes a situation in which a Minister of the Crown has knowledge of a private economic interest that is sufficient to influence the exercise of his or her public duties and responsibilities.

That was the judicial finding when that issue went to inquiry, as this one should.

The Prime Minister had knowledge of his private economic circumstances. His lawyer openly discussed the sale of the golf club shares with him. He knew in January 1996 that he would not be paid for the 1993 sale, yet not 90 days later he was lobbying the president of the Business Development Bank on behalf of the Auberge Grand-Mère.

In the examination by Mr. Justice Ted Hughes of the sale of Premier Vander Zalm's Fantasy Garden World, the premier was held to be in conflict of interest, in part because:

The Vander Zalms retained an interest in the financial well-being of Asiaworld.

Asiaworld was the private company.

Mr. Justice Hughes also found the premier in conflict because:

The Premier, the highest ranking elected official in British Columbia, telephoned the highest ranking executive of Petro-Canada on August 20, 1990 to discuss—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like to be sure that his list will also include his brother. When he wanted him to be made a judge, he called the Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the true talent of the Liberal party does not lie in its cabinet members but in its backbenchers.

If I may quote from the judgment of Mr. Justice Ted Hughes, he also went on to find the premier in conflict because:

The Premier, the highest ranking elected official in British Columbia, telephoned the highest ranking executive of Petro-Canada on August 20, 1990 to discuss the sale of a vacant gas station lot adjacent to the Premier's property.

The Prime Minister's situation is similar. The Prime Minister holds the highest office in the land, yet he telephoned the president of the Business Development Bank, a person who holds his position at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, to lobby on behalf of a hotel that is located adjacent to and does business with the golf course. At the time of the lobbying, the Prime Minister continued to hold a financial interest in the course.

Other jurisdictions have established independent ethics commissioners. That has been done in British Columbia. The conflict commissioner can give advice, hold inquiries and recommend the imposition of sanctions.

Unfortunately, our system does not have this independence.

The motion today calls for the establishment of an independent judicial inquiry to look at all the matters surrounding the Auberge Grand-Mère and the golf club. I support the motion.

I very much hope that the government will follow the advice of a previous Liberal government back in the sixties when the Hon. Paul Martin, then acting prime minister, the father of the present Minister of Finance, agreed to consult with the House on the terms of reference of that inquiry. The situation was the same. The government had stonewalled and the opposition forced an inquiry. There was then a consultation to ensure that there would be fair terms of reference. I call for an urgent public inquiry.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is a rather sad spectacle. The leader of the fifth party talk about ethics. Let us do that. Let us talk about his $85,000 pension and $10 million party debt. Then he demanded another $200,000 to be leader of his party. Last year he got the lowest popular vote in history. He decreased his seats from 20 to 12 but he demanded $160,000 to top up his $130,000 salary. With all his money, perhaps he could retain his wife to advise him on conflict of interest.

The right hon. member's wife has some rather clear views on conflict of interest. She has said that the Progressive Conservative Party's new conflict of interest guidelines were “a massive intrusion” on her private life. Ms. McTeer, the wife of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, went on to say when she was a candidate for the Conservative nomination in Carleton—Gloucester that the then proposed legislation causes a substantial loss of independence. The most shocking thing is that she said by requiring members of parliament and their spouses to declare their assets and their income, the legislation “somehow assumes we are dishonest”.

We agree with—

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know the relevance of these particular comments coming from this member to the motion. If I may refer to the motion, it states:

That this House calls for the establishment of an independent judicial inquiry to determine if the Prime Minister is in breach of conflict of interest rules regarding his involvement with the Grand-Mère Golf Club and the Grand-Mère Inn; and that the inquiry should have broad terms of reference with the power to subpoena all relevant documents—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I want to remind hon. members that in terms of questions and comments the Chair has always shown a lot of leeway. Obviously I want to ask the hon. member to put his question to the leader of the fifth party.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre talked about tax returns. I think he used the phrase serial recipients of government contracts.

Let me talk about serial recipients of government contracts. Let me talk about the right hon. member's brother. Did the right hon. member for Calgary Centre in fact arrange to have his brother appointed as a legal agent for Canada Mortgage and Housing? Once the party had been reduced to two seats and he no longer was the minister, did he call—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for St. Albert on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast pointed out that the question today is on the Prime Minister and his ethics or lack thereof. In fact, we consider this issue so serious that we are asking for a judicial inquiry on the Prime Minister. We can deal with other issues another day, but the issue is the Prime Minister and his lack of ethics.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Since we only have five minutes for questions and comments, I would like to permit the hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to answer the question that was put to him. It is up to him what he wants to say in terms of answering the question.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. First, I am quite prepared not only to stand on my record but to have it very closely examined by members of the House. I have lived in this political life for four decades now and I am quite open.

Second, I find it quite astounding that the hon. member would sink so low in this debate to attack my wife and to attack my brother. He does not know my dog. Perhaps he would like to attack my dog. I want to say to the hon. member that even his dad would not sink so low in the House of Commons. I would hope that he would follow higher standards than he has exhibited here.

Finally, the point is the following. We have been asking serious questions. I invite the House and the public to take a look at the questions that I have asked day after day in the House. The kinds of answers that we have received quite consistently, whatever party posed the question, have not been an attempt to address the real question but have instead been an attempt to insult, to slur, to change the subject. That is the reaction of a government that is in panic.

That is the reaction of a government whose contempt for the House of Commons leaves the House of Commons with no parliamentary option. That makes this absolutely essential. This issue goes to the heart of the moral authority of the Prime Minister. It raises the question as to whether or not he is able to take such simple responsibilities as firing a minister of his own when she behaves so badly. It goes to the heart of the moral authority of the Prime Minister of Canada. If it is not possible for us to resolve it here in the House of Commons, then that is simply another compelling argument for an independent public inquiry, which all the parties on this side of the House, despite our differences, have joined together in seeking.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, this request is based on credibility. I will provide two quotes quickly.

Here is what the hon. member said on February 7. The leader of the Conservative Party admitted to the press that he had absolutely no proof of wrongdoing, telling the journalists “Let's leave it that I am fishing at this stage”.

Then at the end of February after the RCMP inquiry, he went on to say:

The RCMP appears to have decided that (there was no criminal wrongdoing) and I accept their decision on the basis of the facts that are known now.

Is he saying that the RCMP has no credibility and did he lobby for his brother?

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

Of course not, Madam Speaker. I suppose that kind of excess simply shows the desperation of the government's defenders.

What we are talking about here is a conflict of interest question. Is there proof? Yes, there is growing proof, not quite enough. The government has published some documents. It left a six year gap in documents. What they say raises new questions.

If there is any sense of conscience, if there is any sense of decency, on the part of backbench members of the Liberal Party, they would vote to clear up this matter. They would vote for an inquiry so parliament could get on with other business.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this motion and in particular to share my time with the former prime minister, whose career, whose service to Canada and whose reputation are impeccable in the House.

As has been stated already, it is quite a sad attempt, and I would go so far as to say a pathetic attempt, by the government to deflect attention from the issue when we see the desperate references, even to go so far as to try to insult a person's family. I am surprised, frankly, that Liberal members on the opposite side of the House would, in their own conscience, sit by and cheer in their churlish, childish way those attempts to distract attention from the real issue.

We know what the real issue is. It is here and it has been defined in this motion as one calling for an independent, judicial, public inquiry into the affairs surrounding the Prime Minister's business transactions in his riding of Shawinigan.

The facts now on the public record are such that there is a mounting case, whether it be public opinion or whether it be evidence if it were before a criminal court, that would suggest there are irrefutable facts that the Prime Minister put himself deliberately in a conflict of interest by his business dealings and by his direct interventions with the Business Development Bank of Canada.

For many years it has been a longstanding accepted tradition that government would not deal directly with arm's length corporations that were set up to serve the public. This is what has happened.

The Prime Minister directly called the president of the Business Development Bank with the full knowledge that he had an interest in a golf course that was adjoining the hotel. He lobbied on behalf of that same hotel, in which he once held an interest, to give it public money, and this is the key. Public money in the amount of $615,000 was put into the hotel that was directly adjacent to the golf course while the Prime Minister still had a financial interest in that golf course. It is not rocket science. It is not any sort of a legal leap of faith to suggest that the Prime Minister had a stake in the approval of the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère.

The evidence surrounding this and the attempts by the Liberal government to obscure, to cloud, to somehow make murky the clear evidence that the Prime Minister made this intervention from direct denials in the House, from letters and media manipulation on the part of the Prime Minister and some of his poisoned partisans like Warren Kinsella is very much something that should concern the Canadian people. People should be concerned about the efforts and the lengths at which the government has gone to obscure the truth.

Attempts to penetrate what has taken place through clear questions in the House, very straightforward penetrating questions, have been brushed aside. There has been continual public slurs of individuals' names, their records and their families. This again heightens the frustration and I would suggest the animosity of this debate.

There are clear indications now that the Prime Minister obviously did not have his shares in a blind trust, even though that was misstated on the floor of the House by himself and his trained protector, the Minister of Industry. There have been clear contradictions on the public record about the actions of Mr. Jean Carle, who lived in the Prime Minister's basement and who was his anointed son. He is the same individual who was dispatched to the Business Development Bank as a courier of PMO speaking points for the Business Development Bank president. The Prime Minister stood here and said there was no involvement of Mr. Carle on that file, which was completely false.

There is clear evidence that even Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister's personal Rasputin, involved himself in this matter. He indicated that Mr. Carle was not introduced to the president of the Business Development Bank by him at a hockey game in Montreal. That in fact was a fallacy.

There have been many occasions where the Prime Minister could have been forthcoming. He could have come before the Canadian people and used the House as his forum to set the record straight. Instead he has done the opposite. He has taken every occasion to run from the truth and add further fuel to the fire by selectively releasing documents that try to exonerate him. It is now clear that this was very much an after the fact attempt to corroborate or somehow exonerate the Prime Minister. We know that this was not full disclosure.

As required by law, in a legal sense, in a criminal court full disclosure is necessary. The crown cannot decide whether to give little dribs and drabs of evidence to the defence to make its case. It has to give full disclosure. That obviously has not happened here. What we have seen are documents resembling, in the case of the supposed bill of sale, something that a couple of kids would write with a crayon on the back of a napkin at a Kool-Aid stand. This is not the type of documents or documentation we would expect from two millionaires with legal training.

Let us debunk the myth about the little guy from Shawinigan. This is the big enchilada from Ottawa with whom we are dealing. This is a multimillionaire who just wanted to get paid. He stated quite clearly in the House that he just wanted to get paid.

What does that denote? A financial interest, even though he maintained repeatedly and still maintains that he sold his shares in 1993. There is a very clear question here. Why is the name of the Prime Minister's company still appearing on documents in 1999, six years later? Obviously, a financial interest remained.

There are more mounting contradictions. The more we delve into it, it is like an onion. The more we peel away, more questions emerge. The government has gone to great lengths to try to obfuscate what has taken place. This plethora of contradictions remains.

We know we are supposed to put all assets in a blind trust when one enters the office. If a person is in cabinet, all the assets go into a blind trust. That obviously did not happen. There was a $300,000 debt owing and it was not declared. The incredible efforts that are being made here should be cause for alarm. Canadians deserve better, particularly from the Prime Minister. They have suffered now for several years this sad spectacle of the Prime Minister twisting and turning in the wind over the auberge affair.

It is a very complicated tale but at the very root of it is a simple matter. It is one of conflict of interest. It is one of a Prime Minister retaining a financial interest in a property while trying to enhance a nearby property. The government even tried to deny the connection between the golf course and the hotel, as did the industry minister and the very partial and involved ethics counsellor. It is absolutely false to suggest somehow that the hotel would not benefit from having the golf course or the golf course would not benefit from the hotel. Canadians are not that naive.

No one needs a business or real estate background to understand. The hotel includes in its literature the presence of the golf course nearby. The comments now on the public record from the owner, the good friend of the Prime Minister, Mr. Duhaime who bought the hotel from the Prime Minister stated under oath that he in fact relied on the golf course for business. To try to deny the obvious is really a sad spectacle on the part of the government.

The Prime Minister's credibility is very much at stake, as is the credibility of other individuals involved in the issue. The ethics counsellor, not to attack him personally, cannot have a shred of objectivity or credibility in this. He reports to the Prime Minister. His livelihood depends on the Prime Minister. It is unfair to even suggest that somehow he could fairly judge the circumstances. Even if he could, he could not report to parliament because the Prime Minister has set it up in such a way.

The truth is out there. We simply have to have a forum to get at the truth. A full judicial public inquiry would provide us with that opportunity. We have to submit the facts before that objective trier and that would very much satisfy the opposition. The Canadian public are calling for a public inquiry.

What would have happened in the cases of Milgaard, Morin and Marshall if there had been no opportunity to go back and revisit the facts and if they had not been given an opportunity to bring forward new evidence, put the matter behind them and shed light on this issue?

There is an old legal maxim that says guilt always hides from the light. The attempts that have been made on behalf of the government to keep the Canadian people in the dark clearly indicate there is more to this issue. The public deserves better. A full judicial inquiry would allow the public to put the issue behind them. It would allow the Prime Minister to put this behind him.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member who just gave a presentation I know has a legal background. He is a lawyer and was possibly a prosecutor at one time, I am not sure. On the Liberal side there have been numerous references made to this so-called investigation by the RCMP and that the RCMP closed the books on the matter.

Is there a section in the criminal code dealing with conflict of interest specifically where the RCMP would be involved in a major investigation or is it outside its jurisdiction? I am sure the member could distinguish between the two given that if it is outside the RCMP's jurisdiction, then who should be investigating a matter such as what is before the House for debate today?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Calgary who I also understand has a background in criminal law as a police officer. He served the Canadian public in that capacity. He asked a very relevant question.

As I understand it, the RCMP did not conduct an investigation. No relevant witnesses were interviewed. It did not go far afield. It did not interview anyone, as far as I am aware, who could have shed light on this particular investigation.

More directly to his point, the conflict of interest that is alleged here is not one of criminal jurisdiction. It is an issue that arises because of a code of conduct entered into by the Prime Minister. More importantly, it is a code of conduct that the Prime Minister enters into with the Canadian public. He owes a duty to the Canadian public not to put himself in an apparent or real conflict, which is what has happened here. Even if he had no interest whatsoever in that golf course, his actions in enhancing the businesses of a former partner, his partners in the golf course and his close association with all of this property should in and of itself have barred his intervention with the Business Development Bank, and he would not have sullied his name or his office if he had followed that simple maxim.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and his leader both quite sanctimoniously chastised the government side for referring to other people. Then in the middle of his speech he referred to the Prime Minister's chief of staff. He also referred to former staff and used terms such as Rasputin. I have to admit that that is a little inconsistent.

However, I have a specific question on his speech when he said that the issue has been confused or was not clear. What we have is a very clear bill of sale. There are many questions that the opposition is trying to raise but we have a written bill of sale. The corporate solicitors have confirmed that the board of directors in a resolution accepted the transfer of the shares from the Prime Minister's company to Akimbo.

Given those two facts, obviously what we have is an unsecured debt. How can the collection of an unsecured debt be a financial interest in the operations of the golf course? That is the question I would like to hear a clear answer to.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to first address the issue of bringing in other people's families or personal attacks. Obviously, Mr. Carle, Mr. Pelletier and others in the PMO palace guard have a direct involvement in this. This is not somehow a superfluous attack on individuals. These individuals were acting on behalf of the Prime Minister. They were making interventions directly to his benefit. So to suggest somehow that I have gone far afield in chastising or spreading slurs against anyone outside of the Prime Minister's immediate circle is complete rubbish.

To the point itself, the hon. member also has legal training. He knows that document is very suspect. There are no witnesses to the document. We do not know where it was signed. There were no resolutions attached to it. It referred inaccurately to 22% of the shares when we know it was actually 25%. There are numerous inconsistencies in the document. The hon. member, as someone with legal background, knows that this type of very speculative document may or may not stand up in a court of law.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Before we resume, I know most of you do not have Marleau and Montpetit beside you, but because there were a certain number of questions around reference to naming members of the public who are not members of parliament, I would like to read one sentence. It states:

Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for the naming of individuals. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has stressed that Members should avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply and defend themselves against innuendo.

I remind hon. members of this point. I know many of them have been in the House longer than I have.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I am happy to take part in the debate.

The Canadian Alliance brought forward a motion to establish a judicial inquiry to determine whether the Prime Minister is in a conflict of interest. It is a serious and important issue for Canadians. They want to know what is happening and that is why we are calling for a judicial inquiry.

It is becoming more and more evident that the Prime Minister is in a conflict of interest on the Grand-Mère issue. Canadians should be concerned that the Prime Minister lobbied for grants and loans for a failing hotel beside a golf course in his riding in which he held a $300,000 interest.

However Canadians should be even more concerned that time after time the Prime Minister has directly contradicted himself on the facts. One of the latest examples was published by the Canadian Press on April 2, 2001. After denying there were links between the golf course and the hotel, the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère said under oath on November 2, 2000:

Agreements, accounts and contracts were made between the Auberge and (the golf course's) clients. You can understand that this represents a major part of the (Auberge's) receipts.

Canadians are concerned. A Compass poll released March 30 showed that 63% of Canadians think the Prime Minister was wrong in lobbying, 60% of Canadians want an independent public inquiry, and 85% feel it is necessary to get to the bottom of the matter.

How did this develop? The Prime Minister himself set the standard in 1993 but he has not met his own standards. The following are quotations from the 1993 red book:

There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector.

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.

At the time the Liberals were talking about Mulroney, but I think it pertains even more to the present administration. It continued:

The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors.

How did this happen? What is the history of this development? We must go back a little to understand it.

In 1986 the member for St. Maurice quit politics to build his private holdings. In May 1988, along with two business partners, his company J&AC Consultants Inc. bought the Grand-Mère golf course for $625,000.

In April 1993 the money losing Auberge Grand-Mère next to the golf course was sold to an old friend of the Prime Minister's, Yvon Duhaime. The deal was completed just before the Prime Minister was sworn into office.

The Prime Minister says he sold his one-quarter share in the Grand-Mère golf course on November 1, 1993, to a wealthy Toronto real estate developer, Jonas Prince, for $300,000 plus interest.

The sales agreement with Jonas Prince is dated November 1, 1993. It is a handwritten note scrawled on a blank piece of paper. It is not witnessed or notarized. It is without independent confirmation of date. We do not even know what province it was signed in or what law governs it, yet it was drafted by two corporate lawyers. It is quite a note and quite a contract.

However, in two letters to the National Post dated December 1998, Jonas Prince denied buying the share and said it was merely an option to purchase. He sent back the corporate records of the golf course unsigned, took no part in its management, paid $40,000 in compensation in 1997 and thought that was the end of the deal.

It was not. When the Prime Minister needed money he phoned his lawyer and found the debt was unpaid. He then phoned the ethics counsellor at home on a Saturday, January 27, 1996. It must have been pretty important for him to call on a Saturday. The ethics counsellor advised the Prime Minister he could sell the shares or declare publicly that he owned them.

The Prime Minister did neither for three years until a newspaper broke the story in January 1999. Instead he began lobbying for grants and loans for the Auberge Grand-Mère next to the golf club. He had a meeting with immigrant investors on February 28, 1996, made repeated phone calls to the Business Development Bank, and lobbied HRDC for job creation grants in 1996 and 1997.

Seven months after the Prime Minister learned he was still owed money for the shares, a wealthy friend of the Prime Minister's, Claude Gauthier, bought a piece of land from the Grand-Mère Golf Club for $525,000. That was in September 1996, days after Gauthier won a $6 million CIDA contract for which he was not even qualified to bid.

Gauthier's company, Transelec, then donated $10,000 to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign in 1997. The Prime Minister won that campaign, I might remind the House, by just 1,600 votes. During the campaign things were pretty hot and furious in Grand-Mère and Shawinigan.

Later in 1998 HRDC created an illegal trust fund to hold $1.2 million in grant money so that Mr. Gauthier could purchase a company in the throes of bankruptcy. He declared bankruptcy six months later anyway and started the company again with fewer employees.

A friend of the Prime Minister recently said the golf club was still in the Prime Minister's hands and that he was still a registered shareholder. Melissa Marcotte is quoted in the National Post on March 23, 2001, as saying that the minutes of the share registry book had not been signed since 1994. I guess the minutes have been corrected at Industry Canada now. I would like to see them but we do not have the opportunity.

Throughout all this the Prime Minister knew he was owed $300,000 for his shares. He had not been paid for his shares in the golf course. He knew that Jonas Prince thought he did not own the shares. He was kept abreast of the efforts to sell them by both the ethics counsellor and his lawyer Debbie Weinstein.

The Prime Minister's claims are simply not credible. Jonas Prince sold his hotel chain for $90 million. He could have paid for the Grand-Mère Golf Club shares out of pocket change. Why did he not? It is because he never believed he owned the shares. Six years went by and he never paid for the shares. He did not pay for them because he did not believe he owned them.

Since that time heavy pressure has been put on Mr. Prince and he has changed his tune. He obviously believed he did not own the shares. Otherwise he would have paid for them. Why would a successful businessman like Mr. Prince risk the wrath of the Prime Minister of Canada by not honouring what was supposed to be a bill of sale?

It does not make sense. It does not pass the smell test. In other words, as the old saying goes, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. That describes the situation perfectly.

Let us move on. Let us talk about the blind trust issue which is very interesting as well. On March 1, 1994, the Prime Minister put all the business affairs of his holding company, J&AC Consultants Inc., in a blind trust.

The Prime Minister's declaration on the ethics counsellor's website says:

I declare that I hold a third of the shares of J&AC Consultants Inc., a private company managed by a third party who is not dependent on me and without a right of regard on my part.

However on January 27, 1996, the Prime Minister violated the blind trust and called his lawyer and the ethics counsellor regarding the sale of the shares. That is some blind trust. It is a little like the reason Sinclair Stevens had to leave the House, I would add.

If the Prime Minister had distanced himself the controversy may well have been over. If it was a blind trust, the obvious question for Canadians is how he knew the shares had come back to him. It is a pretty obvious question yet it has not been answered.

The ethics counsellor said the debt did not need to be declared because of a “deficient form” that did not require him to declare debts. However the Prime Minister voluntarily put his company into a blind trust. He was not ordered to do so. He voluntarily did so. He broke his own promise to have no right of regard.

On March 23, 1999, The Prime Minister stated in the House that he had voluntarily put his debt in a blind trust:

I put all my assets in the trust. It is a blind trust. I was not forced to give her the management. I did exactly that so I would not have to reply to that type of question.

The ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime Minister had broken that trust.

Let us discuss the Business Development Bank loan. The Prime Minister phoned the president of the Business Development Bank twice and once lobbied him at 24 Sussex Drive. That needs to be explained and that is why we need a judicial inquiry.

The Prime Minister is simply not credible on the issue. Many questions need to answered. It is not normal to phone the president of the Business Development Bank. Members of parliament do not have such access. The Prime Minister did so and he put pressure on him. The net result was that the loan was given. When the loan was pulled two years later because no payments had been made, the president of the Business Development Bank was fired. What a strange coincidence.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could advise the House if he is aware of whether the receivable that was created on the sale of the shares is a registerable item under the rules guiding blind trust? Has he checked that out? Does he know?

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do know that the Prime Minister was never paid for the shares. Even though they were said to be sold on November 1, 1993, he never received payment. The Prime Minister therefore had a clear interest in the shares. Mr. Jonas Prince never paid for them during that period, whether he owned them or not. When the Prime Minister lobbied the president of the Business Development Bank in 1996 and 1997 he was clearly in a conflict of interest.

As to the blind trust issue, it is pretty clear that the Prime Minister should not meddle in a blind trust. He did not need to put his shares there. He did so voluntarily, which makes it all the worse that he did not deal with the issue properly. He violated the spirit of the blind trust.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, to the member for Peace River, several business people have come into my office to determine what kinds of loans are available for business ventures, investments or perhaps grant type loans to help their businesses expand or get over a hump. I have met perhaps a dozen such people during the years I have been in parliament, and I have advised them to go to the Business Development Bank.

Representatives from the Business Development Bank have advised me on the services they provide. At no time have I ever had an opportunity, if I should put it that way, to force, strong arm or cajole BDC representatives into giving loans to the people who come to my office for assistance.

Let us look at the sequence of events surrounding the Business Development Corporation loan. The first occurred when the Prime Minister contacted the president of the Business Development Bank, first by telephone and later by lobbying him at 24 Sussex Drive, to get a loan for the golf course and hotel.

What does the hon. member see as abnormal about that compared to, say, what might happen in any member's office when loan applications go through indirectly to the Business Development Corporation?