Michel Gauthier

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is our impression that the Prime Minister contributed to keeping up the value of his stocks in the Grand-Mère golf club by saving the Auberge Grand-Mère.

The connection between the two was demonstrated by the owner of the auberge, under oath. He is the one who has said so, and in so doing has contradicted the Prime Minister.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister not accept, once and for all, that the Prime Minister is putting them in an awkward position with his statements that are contradicted—

[Employment Insurance Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I heard you say that there is consent for this motion, but there is not consent from all opposition parties.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we have a few minutes before a decision is made on this? We would have some checking to do on the motion that has just been brought forward.

[Prime Minister, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they would be all too happy to have the Prime Minister exhonerated when he is in it up to here.

Article 2.1 of the 1999 agreement confirms that the Prime Minister's company “or any third party will have no further property rights or interest in the shares”.

If the Prime Minister signed this document and stated that he had no further property rights, it means that just before signing the 1999 agreement he had an interest, he had property rights and he is in conflict of interest.

[Prime Minister, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told this House that he had sold his shares in 1993. The ethics counsellor backed up the Prime Minister by saying that it was a sale without right of reversion.

If the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor were speaking the truth, what was the Prime Minister doing in the 1999 transaction? How can a person sell something that has not been in his possession for six years?

[Prime Minister, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not have to dodge the issue.

Is it true that the contract provides that he must, with his own money, pay the lawyers' fees of the other parties should he agree to a parliamentary committee, which would call them to testify? In that sense, is the Prime Minister not in a conflict of interest once again?

[Prime Minister, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would by far prefer to be an ally of my colleagues here than of the people he befriended in the Auberge affair.

We asked the Prime Minister to table the documents concerning the golf issue, so that he could restore his integrity. Not only do the documents tabled yesterday prove that he was in a conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister now has a financial interest in making sure there is no inquiry.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, indeed, should an inquiry be held, he would be required under the terms of the contracts to pay for the lawyers' fees of others?

[Prime Minister, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister signed away his shares in 1999 as a contracting party, either he never endorsed the stock certificates and always remained the owner since he had not been paid or else he endorsed them and they were returned to him and endorsed again. If that is the case, we would like to know when the Prime Minister became a shareholder again.

[Prime Minister, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the most serious problem in this country is the lack of credibility of its leader.

In order to be complete, the sale documents must be accompanied by the stock certificates, because the sale of shares only actually takes place when the certificates are signed at the back.

Why did the Prime Minister not table the stock certificates with the bill of sale to certify that the shares no longer belonged to him, assuming he endorsed them?

[Prime Minister, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's response is a little on the light side when we says there was no connection. The address of the head offices of the golf club and the Auberge is the same, the Auberge Grand-Mère. The connection tightens.

In the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère, Industry Canada has had the books of the golf club corrected. The office of the Prime Minister has asked Melissa Marcotte to change her version of the facts. The Minister of Industry has tabled a letter including a significant error in date and, finally, the ethics counsellor is changing his position.

How does the Prime Minister think that he is being credible in this matter, with all the manoeuvring—