Mr. Speaker, I think what the Leader of the Opposition has done is laid out for Canadians a series of dots, but they are lacking the lines between the dots. They have a lot of statements such as apparently and allegedly.
I want to point out something. I want to quote the hon. Leader of the Opposition's phrase when he said the “flimsy back of a napkin” and how that was not an agreement of sale.
I want to bring his memory back to a company called Multicorp. Five years ago in Alberta there was a company that was being promoted by the premier of Alberta. The shares in that company were given to the wife of the premier and the wife of a Mr. Rod Love. After the shares skyrocketed and it became apparent that this may be an illegal gift, the Leader of the Opposition was confronted with the information and asked if perhaps this violated a conflict of interest. At the time he stood firmly and said no, it was a verbal sale that was acceptable to him. He also said it had no business in front of a judicial inquiry as it was simply the regular business of things.
Therefore, I want to know how he reconciles the fact that in Alberta, with certain political motivations and interest at stake, verbal sales are fine. However, when presented with a legal purchase agreement here, when his political motivations are different, all of a sudden we get the crocodile tears. Could he speak to that for a second?