Joe Jordan

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that. I assure him that I listened to every word he said. He and I are veterans of the private members' process.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing this forward today. I think we are having a very good debate. I would like to make a couple of comments and then ask a question.

First, having experienced serve time, I guess, on the procedure and House affairs subcommittee on private members' business, I know that none of the members would want to leave the impression that the decision on whether a bill is votable is a partisan decision, because it is one of the few committees that does not have a Liberal majority. It has one member from each party, a chair who does not vote and it operates on consensus. I can say from my experience that given the job we were assigned to do, I thought it worked quite well. It was a case where the decision on whether an item was votable or not was a decision that was truly made by our peers.

At some point here I think some members might have been misinformed in some of the debate on private members' business, leaving the impression that this was a committee where the Liberals had the majority and the iron hand of the whip was dictating what was done. That simply was not the case.

The issue comes back to what the NDP House leader was talking about. It comes down to a numbers game. If we do not expand the hours for private members' business, and we do the math, we see that we need to have some kind of filter.

When I first sat on that committee we had about 12 criteria, which were known to members, and members' bills were vetted. When members went to the Table for assistance in the drawing up of their bills, they followed those criteria. When we changed those criteria from 12 down to 4, thinking that we were making the process more open, I think we threw the train off the rails. I think that it then became a subjective process as opposed to an objective process.

I intend to support the motion, but I will be on the receiving end of this in the procedure and House affairs committee and I think what we need is an expanded set of criteria. I think everything that meets those criteria should be votable, but we have to introduce some filters or the whole thing will break down, even with the best of intentions.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, June 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I ask that we suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair.

[The Act Of Incorporation Of The Conference Of Mennonites In Canada, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 12 p.m. so we may then proceed to government orders.

[Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent that Bill S-4 be considered at all stages today, that is, second reading, committee of the whole, report stage and third reading.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, was the member referring to me? I was elected by the people of Leeds—Grenville to represent them.

I quoted the member accurately. For the love of God, I will not go back into the archives and read any more of his speeches to correct it.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the member who I have a great deal of respect for, if we are guilty of that, let us be guilty of that. However the frustrations that many of us feel with the disconnect that we are having with voters should not manifest itself in some kind of judicial inquiry based on revenge. I do not think that is the way the system works. We have to keep these issues separate.

I go back to my original point. The critical piece that is missing from the glass house that has been built by the opposition is the fact that the shares were sold in 1993. Without that link, without the potential for financial gain, they have nothing. To walk down the road of a judicial inquiry to the highest office in the land based on no facts, I have to share Justice Sopinka's view, would be a repugnant act and a disservice to our constituents and Canadians.

The issues that member raises are valid. I think Canadians want this place to start addressing the issues of the day. I had to laugh today when the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said they had been talking about softwood lumber for months. He must be referring to the pine trees on the golf course because that is the only lumber that they have been talking about for four months. They have been absolutely obsessed with this thing, like a dog with a bone.

The leader of the Conservative Party is on a self-confessed fishing expedition. I hope he is outside because it is getting warm, the ice is melting and I know he is not a good swimmer. He is going to go down into a very deep hole if he is not careful.

Canadians want us to move on. In the absence of any facts or proof, when we are standing here with a document from the ethics counsellor and a document from the RCMP saying there is no criminal wrongdoing, then there is no basis to go any further than this. It is just cheap partisan tactics and it ends here.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the very capable member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I rise to speak in opposition to the motion before us here today which 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—

At the heart of this motion is the assertion by the opposition that the Prime Minister had some personal financial association with the hotel he helped in his capacity as a member of parliament for Saint-Maurice and supported its application for funds to expand for a tourism operation in his riding.

Let us take the opposition into some unfamiliar territory and examine the facts.

Prior to becoming the Prime Minister of this country, the Prime Minister sold his shares in a company that owned a golf course near a hotel. The shares never returned to his ownership and the opposition, although it tried, has never presented any credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Its fall back position seems to be that if it says something loud enough and long enough it becomes fact. The opposition is welcome to its opinion but Canadians deserve the facts.

Although the facts that I alluded to were first introduced in the House over two years ago, they resurfaced in earnest during the campaign last November as part of the opposition's strategy to discredit the Prime Minister.

During that campaign, at the request of the opposition parties, the ethics counsellor examined the situation. At the time the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party took great stock, no pun intended, in the fact that the ethics counsellor was looking into this matter. For about three days during that campaign the reference to this investigation was used as part of the opposition's campaign to discredit the Prime Minister.

We did not pull the ethics counsellor off the street. He was the assistant deputy registrar, a career civil servant with an impeccable record. At the time of his appointment we consulted, in conjunction with our red book promise, Mr. Lucien Bouchard who was the leader of the opposition at the time. He said:

I want to make clear right away that we fully support the appointment of Mr. Howard Wilson as Ethics Counsellor. We are aware that Mr. Wilson has had a praiseworthy career in the federal Public Service and that we can have every confidence in his ability to take the helm in this matter at a critical time.

The member for Elk Island said at the time:

The person in the position right now is an honourable person...He is a man of integrity. He is a man that can be trusted.

During the heat of an election campaign, after touting the fact that this man was looking into it, when he came back with a decision the opposition members did not like, they said “he's a lap dog”. All of a sudden this man, a career civil servant, is a lap dog. In my riding the candidate who ran against me held up pictures of dogs as a big joke. It is not a joke. The only person laughing at that is the late Senator Joe McCarthy.

It is a disgrace that they would use this ends justifies the means logic. They do not care who gets in their way. They have one motive in mind and that is to discredit one of the most popular prime ministers in the history of this country. They cannot beat him in the ballot box so they are trying to drag him down in the gutter and have their way. We are not going to put up with it. We are not going to stand by and let it happen.

The leader of the Conservative Party, not happy with the ethics counsellor's investigation, called in the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Again he said that they were looking into this and that the Prime Minister was under investigation. He said it was a great public relations war that they were winning. The RCMP came back and said that there was no criminal activity. True to form the opposition members moved the goal posts. That is their strategy.

Then the member for Edmonton North said that the bill of sale should be said. He said:

The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just tabling the bill of sale for those shares in 1993.

The Leader of the Conservatives on this issue said:

The way the Prime Minister can settle this is to lay upon the table of the House of Commons the agreement for the sale between himself and Jonas Prince.

The member for Roberval put it this way:

Does he not understand that the only way to settle this matter, to exonerate himself—the only way, there are not 50 of them, only one—is to provide us with the record of sale, as we have demanded so many times already? Let him provide that, and the problem will be over.

The Prime Minister provided them with the bill of sale and other relevant documents. In the absence of a human to attack, the opposition members started attacking the document itself by saying “It's a flimsy piece of napkin written in crayon. It wouldn't fit in a typewriter”. They are not saying that it is not a legal document because they know it is a legal document. If they had any guts they would step outside that door and make that accusation.

If they want a judicial inquiry they will get it in an awful hurry. That is a legal document. It transferred the shares. The ethics commissioner upheld that ruling and they have had no evidence today or in the last two weeks to change that fact. That is the foundation that every subsequent allegation they are making is built on and it is built on sand.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke very eloquently. He is a member for whom I have great respect. I listened to the entire debate today and the line he was working on was let us err on the side of safety. Let us just have the inquiry anyway just to clear the air.

The distinguished and respected late Mr. Justice Sopinka of the Supreme Court of Canada criticized such action. He criticized action that was aimed directly at the alleged wrongdoing of specific individuals which needed to operate within the confines of a criminal trial. Mr. Justice Sopinka said that this kind of inquiry based on allegations alone was repugnant.

I do not have to imagine the repugnance because I have witnessed it today. I witnessed it when a member of the Conservative Party compared the Prime Minister's chief of staff to Rasputin. I ask the members if they are sorry for that. I realize now that they are all nodding that they are. I accept that apology from them. It speaks well to them and I appreciate that. I think they just got a little carried away.

Then we had the member for Calgary—Nose Hill stand up and compare the Prime Minister of Canada to Slobodan Milosevic. This is the kind of nonsense that these witch hunts, these inquisitions and these fishing expeditions are going to result in. At the end of the day they have no case. The RCMP told them that.

This is a partisan smear job and it is pay back. The NDP members are upset because we criticized their role in the summit of the Americas. The Tories are upset because they have not quite recovered from the number that Canadians did on Mulroney. If I understood the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca properly, he said we should do this because we are bored. We should launch a judicial inquiry into the Prime Minister of the country out of boredom. It is nonsense.

The Prime Minister has done nothing more than be a good MP for the people of his riding. The motion before the House is an insult to his good name and an insult to his long standing reputation for the highest ethical behaviour. The member for Leeds—Grenville is not going to be drawn into this nonsense.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

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.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the opposition on its strategy. The first two speakers are very experienced in this issue, I think, having both come out on the wrong end of libel suits; the opposition has sent its pros to us.

However, I do want to ask a question of this speaker, who stood in the House of Commons yesterday and made a very serious allegation against the Prime Minister. She said that the owner of the Grand-Mère hotel had sworn on the Bible that there was a business relationship between his facility and the Grand-Mère golf course. I have the disposition here. Will she say that outside?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

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?