Debates of April 3rd, 2001

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a very good one.

This is not a normal situation, as the Prime Minister would have us believe. It is far from it. The president of the Business Development Bank is indirectly an employee of parliament. BDC is a crown corporation, a government owned bank. The Prime Minister phoned the president of that bank and put pressure on him to give a loan to a friend who happens to own a hotel next to the Prime Minister's golf course.

If the hotel failed and he did not get the loan, the value of the golf course would obviously have diminished. This is far from a normal operation. I do not know of any members of the House who have that kind of clout, the opportunity to phone the president of the Business Development Bank and ask for those kinds of favours.

The president of the BDC, Mr. Beaudoin, did not like it either. It took two calls plus heavy lobbying at the Prime Minister's residence to make it happen. Even then the interest rates were put at 25% because he considered it a very high risk loan, and well he should have. Two and a half years after getting the loan no payments had been made. That is why the BDC president advised that there should be foreclosure. As soon as that happened the bank manager lost his job.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we should take a few minutes in the debate for Canadians to consider why they should care whether the Prime Minister breached the code of ethics.

Why should Canadians care? Members opposite, especially on the front benches, have said that we should be talking about other things in the House and that Canadians care about other things. It is important that we consider why Canadians should care about whether their Prime Minister breached the code of ethics. Today's news from Belgrade, Yugoslavia, emphasizes why today's debate in the House of Commons is so important to Canadians.

Let me read just a few lines from a news story about the arrest of Mr. Milosevic. The news story quotes people in—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are very familiar with the Standing Orders. This is totally out of context.

It is totally irrelevant. We should stick to the debate and not to that kind of crap.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I did read earlier a reference in Montpetit and Marleau concerning reference to public figures. I will let the hon. member continue on debate and if there are questions I will take questions at that time.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how desperate members opposite are to stop the debate and interrupt it in any way. I say shame on them.

People in Yugoslavia are saying today that they are a civilized people. Why do they need to say that? It is because of the very uncivilized actions that have taken place in that country recently. A Balkan expert has replied to the question of why Mr. Milosevic did what he did. He said it was power, money and greed. It was that simple. He was motivated completely by a desire to stay in power.

United States diplomat Richard Holbrooke's memoirs of the Bosnian peace talks revealed Mr. Milosevic as witty, insightful and sadly unscrupulous. He adds that:

Analysts agree that southern Europe—

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not out of desperation. This is out of an absolute sense of shame that the member would somehow try to link this place or our Prime Minister to Milosevic who has been arrested and will be charged with crimes against humanity.

There is no relevance whatsoever to using that as a comparative. I ask the member to withdraw those remarks and to apologize to the House and to Canadians for trying to make such a despicable—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Earlier, and the hon. member was not present, I read a reference in Montpetit and Marleau concerning reference to public figures. In this case it is a parallel that the hon. member is referring to.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that if it was not entirely relevant there would not be such desperation on the other side to put a stop to the allusion. The quote continues:

Analysts agree that southern Europe might today be a much different place had Mr. Milosevic's talents been tempered by morality. But if nothing else, Mr. Milosevic's fall sends a message to future politicians that ultimate power does not eliminate accountability.

Ultimate power does not eliminate accountability. The Prime Minister holds ultimate power over almost every aspect of what happens in government. For many people, the truthfulness of people that they deal with, let alone people who hold ultimate power, might seem like an abstract concept until they start to think more deeply. If we cannot believe the people we deal with, our whole relationship, the whole basis for a civilized society crumbles.

It was Solzhenitsyn, who was almost the sole fighter against a corrupt and immoral political system, who said:

One word of truth outweighs the entire world.

In our country and in the House of Commons it appears that we have shifted from truth to power games. It appears that it is not truth that carries the day, but spin doctors and communications specialists. Interjections by government members to try to hide the points being made by the opposition are more important than getting to the truth. Truth is extremely important because without truth there is simply no basis at all for trust.

Trust is what makes democracy work and it is the foundation for freedom. It is what makes our parliamentary conventions work. It may be a long way from what we have in Canada to what we have seen in Yugoslavia, but the principles are precisely the same. That is why the debate is so terribly important to Canadians, their families and their future, and to our country. Without truth what do we have? We have only manipulation. We have only a—

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

You besmirch somebody's reputation. That is what you have when you do not have the truth. You have the Alliance Party—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. We will call a time out.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suggest to Canadians that over the last two years questions have been raised about whether the Prime Minister failed to exercise his unique and tremendous position of power in a fair and impartial way because he had something to gain or lose personally from certain actions that he took in ensuring that the public's money was allocated to friends and businesses in his riding.

There are also a troubling and appalling number of instances where the Prime Minister's statements in the House on the matter proved not to square with the facts as they came out later. Canadians have a direct stake in the outcome of this matter First, truth telling is the glue that holds a civilized society together. Second, only ethics and honesty can serve to protect the relationship between the governors and the governed.

I suggest that this has been a very important convention in our parliamentary tradition. It is fair to say that our parliamentary traditions hold that to mislead or make a false statement to the House is about the most serious sin a minister could commit. To do so would be a complete rejection of parliamentary values. How can a government be held responsible if it will not be honest in statements to the House?

It has been considered a fundamental principle in the parliamentary system that the government would always be honest in the House of Commons. This has always been considered essential and absolutely fundamental.

There is an example of this during the Pearson administration. Prime minister Pearson took a very serious view of an occasion where he inadvertently and innocently misled the House. This was documented in Gordon Robertson's book Memoirs of a Very Civil Servant which recounts the facts surrounding the Rivard case.

Mr. Pearson was asked in the House of Commons as to when he was advised of the situation. He made a response, but in effect it was incorrect. He had been advised of the situation by his justice minister two weeks earlier. His mind was busy with other things and he had forgotten the conversation.

No one knew that he had been advised earlier than what he told the House. Nobody knew except him and his minister. Yet the prime minister took this so seriously and was so concerned that he had misinformed the House, even though it was innocent, that he set up the Dorion commission to inquire into the affair. When all the facts came out the commission cleared the prime minister of any wrongdoing in this matter.

This was a situation where misleading the House had been innocent. It had been inadvertent, unintentional, and no one knew about it. It was not a matter of public record. Prime minister Pearson took his ethical responsibilities so seriously that he set up a public commission to look into his own innocent and inadvertent statement in the House. Members should contrast that with what we have today.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly on record in the House of Commons made statements that clearly do not square with the facts that have come out later. We are asking for the kind of commission that Pearson set up under far less serious circumstances.

What does the Liberal government do? Does it uphold parliamentary conventions? Does it uphold the ethical standards of the Pearson administration? No, it has sunk so low that the truth will be hidden. It is important that Canadians get the truth because without truth there is no safety, no accountability and no democracy.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity a year or so ago to travel to the former Yugoslavia. I went to witness Canadian development projects trying to remove one million landmines still remaining in Croatia, a small part of the former Yugoslavia.

That does not refer to the reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also does not refer to the misery inflicted on the people of Kosovo, the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, some of whom I have met and some of whom are here in Canada as we speak. Some may even be listening to the speech the hon. member has just made.

Could the member in good conscience explain to the people of a wartorn country, with all the misery inflicted upon them, why she feels it is appropriate to make fun of the misery that they endured in order to make a cheap political point? How could she make an accusation, and a ridiculous one at that, against the Prime Minister of the greatest country in the world that greeted and welcomed those refugees of the misery perpetrated according to the international tribunal in The Hague and possibly inflicted by Milosevic? We are not making those accusations. A worldwide tribunal has said that.

How will the hon. member explain her statement to her constituents, to other Canadians, to everyone who works in international development, to people who work for the Red Cross and to people who risk their own lives to defend democratic values? How could she make fun of them like that? I do not know whether she has ever had the opportunity of seeing what life over there is like but if she has not, it would be well worth the trip. She perhaps would then refrain from making those kinds of remarks in the future.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

You should have listened to what she said.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I listened to everything that she said. She may or may not have a point to debate with other members, but that is no excuse for the kind of statement she just made. It cheapens this institution and, more important, it insults the intelligence of the many people on earth who have suffered.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House leader for the government got the point that I was making because it is a very important one. I again quote from Richard Holbrooke's memoirs. He said:

Analysts agree that southern Europe might today be a much different place had Mr. Milosevic's talents been tempered by morality. But if nothing else, Mr. Milosevic's fall sends a message to politicians that ultimate power does not eliminate accountability.

It is important that there is morality, ethics and honesty in government because truth telling is the glue that holds a civilized society together. It is also the glue that holds a democracy together. Only ethics and honesty can serve to protect the governed from those who govern.

I hope and pray that the government will care enough about honesty and ethics that it will give the Canadian people the gift of knowing that their Prime Minister is wholly, completely and irrefutably honest. Only an independent inquiry, after all the lies, misrepresentations and things that do not add up come out—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There are 23 seconds remaining for a quick question or answer.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, fanatics are people who, when they lose sight of their objectives, redouble their efforts.

I worked in eastern Europe for three years. I am an insulted Canadian when I hear the member compare our current Prime Minister to the likes of Milosevic. She owes Canadians an apology. She should stand in her place now and apologize to her constituents and to Canadians for such a ridiculous level that she has stooped to in this affair. It shows the complete lack of facts that members opposite are basing this accusation on.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, truth is important in Yugoslavia and truth is important in Canada. If the government does not care about the truth at least it can care enough about Canadians to let them get to the bottom of this and to answer all the questions that have come up about the actions and the statements of our own Prime Minister.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga South.

I thought I had seen the lowest of the low in this place until the speech that I just heard and witnessed. I hope the constituents in Nose Hill were watching television and listening to the kind of poisonous rhetoric that we just heard from that member opposite.

Not only does she lower the level of debate by attempting to compare someone accused of crimes against humanity, of fraud, of theft and who may be tried in The Hague by an international court for the most violent kind of crimes that anyone could experience, she has tried to compare a right hon. member of this place to that person by using terminology such as “the answers have to square with the facts”.

She says that truth telling is the glue that keeps our society together, that we should not mislead or make false statements. How many ways does one person in this place call another one a liar? That is what I heard, but I do not see anyone over there with the courage to stand and say it. Instead the opposition hides behind phraseology, trickery and debate.

The one thing I can say is that unlike many of my colleagues in this place I am not a lawyer. As a result it gives me a unique perspective in looking through all the nonsense that is being hurled around here that is nothing more than legal bafflegab.

The facts are clear. The opposition demanded that the ethics counsellor look into the matter after having accused the Prime Minister of having a conflict of interest. That is what it asked for, and he did it. The opposition did not like the answer, so the only weapon it had left was to attack the integrity of the ethics counsellor, a man whose integrity is beyond reproach. That is all it could do. It does not like the answer, so it tries to shoot the messenger.

The leader of the fifth party, a man who is the only other person in this place to share the title right honourable, requested that the RCMP investigate and look into criminal activity. When the RCMP replies that there is no criminal activity, what does he do? He cloaks himself around the guise of being a bit holier than thou by suggesting that he was not saying the Prime Minister was dishonest, but on the other hand he did not believe the Prime Minister was telling the truth.

Members opposite say that the Prime Minister is not a liar but on the other hand truth has to win out. They say truth will win out, but he is not lying. What kinds of games are these?

Canadians can see through this nonsense. This is nothing more than a witch hunt like no other I have ever witnessed in my 23 years in public office. It is an attempt by the opposition to destroy one man. Why? It is because they cannot win any other way. They have tried by walking through the front door of parliament, but the closest they get is a sniff of sitting across in the opposition benches.

They cannot get in the front door through the electoral process, so they find another strategy. They tear down the institution. They tell Canadians that parliament is dysfunctional and that nothing works. They prove it by harassing and continually bringing forward motions that make this place extremely difficult to work in. They destroy themselves and then they become reborn. It is an amazing strategy to behold. How does one tear down the institute of parliament? It is done by attacking the top member of the institution.

Members wanted to see the bill of sale. Members on all sides said that if the bill of sale were shown it would solve this in a heartbeat. Those are not our words. They said that this could be solved in a heartbeat. The Prime Minister talked to the ethics counsellor and decided to release the documents. He released not only the bill of sale but 10 supporting documents that go with the bill of sale that explain every question members opposite have asked. Was that acceptable? No.

Now it is being denigrated as being written on a napkin at a kool-aid stand. Canadians see through that. It is a handwritten document. That is not unusual. I have entered into agreements myself that have been handwritten on stationery and signed. It is the intent that matters, and members know that. The Prime Minister sold the shares in 1993. What could be more clear?

One member opposite said that the Prime Minister voluntarily put his shares into a blind trust. That is absolutely not the truth. It is a fallacious statement that is not based on the historical record. He did not have shares to put into a blind trust. They did not exist in his possession. He was owed money and it is ironic that at the end of the day the man lost money. It has to be one of the worst business deals he has ever done. He lost something in the neighbourhood of $50,000 on the sale of those shares. Why did Mr. Prince not pay him? How would we know? How would he know?

The Prime Minister turned the matter, the collection of a debt and that is all it was, over to his trustee. The trustee worked co-operatively with the commissioner to try to collect the moneys that were properly and duly owed to the Prime Minister and his family. Should he be penalized because he is the Prime Minister or a member of parliament? Should he say to forget the debt, that he would wash his hands of it, and that he would not try to collect it because he is in public office? Should he not be able to do his job as a member of parliament on behalf of his constituents.

No one talks about the fact that the first loan application for the hotel was for $2 million. That was turned down by the bank. How much did they actually get when they got the loan approved? After some assistance from their MP, how much did they actually get? It was $615,000, a far cry from $2 million.

Is it unusual for a loan to be turned down and for the applicant to be told to go back to redo the business plan, to set out the issues in priority and to return with an alternative proposal for a lesser amount? It is about as normal as any other kind of business transaction that I can imagine. Loans were received from the caisse populaire. Is there something wrong with that?

I do not understand why people want to destroy businesses in the Prime Minister's riding. I understand the political motivation for trying to destroy him. It is the only way that they can take over this place. The damage that is being done to innocent people at the ground level who are not in the blood sport called politics, who do not have an axe to grind in any of this, is most unfortunate.

If the opposition wants an inquiry, I have one. The Leader of the Opposition when he was a member in Alberta falsely made an accusation against a local lawyer. He made derogatory remarks for which he was sued and for which he subsequently settled upon fear of being found guilty. He settled and the taxpayers were left with a bill of almost $800,000. Of that, $400,000 went to the law firm that defended the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not somewhat puzzling when it came out that there was an election contribution of $70,000 by that same law firm to the Canadian Alliance?

Upon revealing the information that the $70,000 contribution had been made to the Canadian Alliance, the same law firm recanted. It said that it was not the firm, that it was one of its partners. It got the receipt back and asked that another receipt be issued in the name of an individual. It was one person, one man, one lawyer who worked as a partner in the same law firm that represented the Leader of the Opposition in a defamation law suit, who donated $70,000. Members should think about that. That man needs help: $70,000 as a donation to one political party.

I find it an astounding coincidence that the $70,000 donation to one political party is the same amount that was made by the legal firm. It is the same amount for which the law firm requested that the receipt be withdrawn and a new one issued to the individual. Is there something wrong with that? Maybe we need an inquiry.

In closing, I want to say and reiterate that this is clearly one of the most despicable attempts by an opposition, granted a united opposition, that has only one goal, and that is to destroy the Prime Minister of the country.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was in municipal politics as he said during his intervention. I would like to ask him a question about his time in municipal politics.

I also spent a little time on my town council. Whenever there was an issue that arose in which I had any influence at all, such as property I had owned, or an interest in a roadway or possibly a company that I had some interest in, I always stepped aside and did not vote on or discuss issues like that in the municipal arena.

Did the hon. member ever have the same opportunity to step aside and not vote on an issue in municipal government? Does he see, and I would honestly like to know, a difference between the municipal level and the federal level? I think there is a difference. I do not see nor hear that same approach here.

Did the member have the opportunity to not vote on an issue that he might have had an interest in? Does he think that the same ethical standards should apply in the federal parliament?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my record in municipal government is quite open to the public. I want to share something that is relevant to the hon. gentleman's question. It is from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Regarding what one should not do, it says:

The offer of any money or other advantage to any Member of the House, for the promoting of any manner whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion of the Constitution.

I would point out to the hon. member that there is someone in this place who in my view has contravened this section. It is the leader of the fifth party. He accepted money from his party, money that was raised by public or private contributions to the party, and accepted it as an extra emolument to his salary.

Do we want another inquiry? Why do we not look into that conflict of interest and find out just exactly where the member is getting his money from, how much he is getting, who is contributing and how he can justify taking extra money to perform his duties in this place?

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member across the way has managed to convince himself, but he has certainly not convinced me.

I have been involved in transactions for twenty years, and I have sold shares like this. When there is a sale of shares that involves an unpaid balance of $300,000, normally guarantees are set out. Normally, such a contract would be a minimum of 20 pages.

However, if the member opposite claims to know the whole truth of the Prime Minister's saga, perhaps he could explain how the Prime Minister's company, a numbered company, bought from Consolidated Bathurst, at one point, nearly half the riding of Shawinigan for one dollar and other fair and reasonable considerations? Could he explain what these considerations were, he who claims to know every aspect of the Prime Minister's personal transactions?

I put this question to him, he who alleges difficulties in the case of certain members of other parties. This involves a contract worth $300,000 with a $300,000 balance of the selling price. It is true that the parties' intent is capital. It is true that it could be written on the corner of a napkin, as he says, except that generally there are guarantees.

If the member's logic holds, how is it that the Prime Minister intervened in the second sale in 1999, this time to support burdens more onerous than those contained in the first agreement of sale, which was an absolute sale, apparently in 1993?

If he no longer had them in 1993, how could he be party to the sale in 1999? This would be enough, if he is of good faith, to raise questions, and good ones, and try to come up with a response.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will give the hon. gentleman at least credit for dealing with the issues, unlike much of the debate I have heard opposite.

There is a saying that I have heard in business and in legal circles, and that is that the contract is only as good as the two people who enter into it. I think people accept that as a fact. The member can laugh but it is the factual way of doing business right across this country. Many times it is done, I might add, on a handshake. However, I am not sure members opposite would understand that level of trust.

This contract was clearly signed by both people. They were seen to be people of faith. I think the Prime Minister would have good reason to trust Mr. Prince and there is no question that Mr. Prince would have good reason to trust the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, last Thursday the House had a vote on an adjournment motion. After that vote was taken, I remember standing out in the lobby. I saw a member of parliament in the midst of other members of parliament having a little fun about what had just happened in the House.

It was very interesting that when some reporters with cameras came into the area, the lights went on and the whole thing changed. All of a sudden there was a substantial amount of animation. Quite frankly what happened was people started to perform and this probably did not show this place in its best light.

That is what happens in question period every day. The press are up in the gallery and looking down for the news clip. It is looking for the quotable quote and members are jockeying for that position. It does not show us in a good light and that is unfortunate.

When I listened to the debate and heard some things which concerned me. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said unequivocally “I do not accept things on faith”. There is just nothing in this place that he will believe. He will not accept the facts and he wants to continue to go on so there is no trust.

The NDP leader talked about a number of things. In particular, she referred to someone she called the ethics commissioner. She referred to the ethics commissioner at least three times and attributed a number of points to this person.

[An hon. member]

There is no such position.