Deborah Grey

[Ethics Counsellor, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister called the ethics counsellor in January 1996 he warned him that the sale of his shares had fallen through. Until those shares were finally sold in 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister said no relevant time. There is nothing more relevant than the fact that the ethics counsellor is now condemning the Prime Minister. After that, $3.4 million started flowing into the Auberge Grand-Mère. If that hotel had been allowed to go belly up, the golf course obviously would have been worth less, and the ethics counsellor has now confirmed that.

The question is, why was taxpayer money used to prop up the Prime Minister's personal investments?

[Ethics Counsellor, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they try to deflect it, but the issue is that the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor—

[Ethics Counsellor, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I first asked a question about the Auberge Grand-Mère on February 1, 1999, two years ago. The Prime Minister and his ethics guard dog have pretended that the Prime Minister had no financial interest in the Auberge Grand-Mère. Now the Prime Minister takes off to China and his ethics counsellor cracks. He now admits that the Prime Minister in fact did have a financial interest.

The question is, why the two year cover-up?

[Ethics Counsellor, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I sort of thought the question was: Is the Liberal government going to carry through on its promises in the red book? It was pretty simple.

I first asked questions of the Prime Minister's interest for the Auberge Grand-Mère on February—

[Ethics Counsellor, February 12th, 2001]

Now there is dodging, Mr. Speaker.

Let me quote something else from the industry minister. He said recently, and I quote, “Ministers are required to ensure that their affairs are dealt with by putting those in trust, and that is what the Prime Minister did”.

He could not have been more clear, but he could not have been more wrong.

Why does the industry minister just keep tossing off the truth?

[Ethics Counsellor, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what would be terrific is if the industry minister would recant what he said on February 8. He defended the Prime Minister's dodgy involvement with immigrant investor funds by claiming that the Prime Minister's shares in the golf course were held in a blind trust. That is 100% false. He can check that with the ethics counsellor.

This business about who owned the shares, the Prime Minister got those shares back on January 27, 1996. They were his. He had an interest in the hotel right beside the golf course at the Auberge Grand-Mère.

Did the industry minister make those claims out of ignorance or fear?

[Grants And Contributions, February 8th, 2001]

So, Mr. Speaker, here he is. He did not have relations with those people.

There is an unbelievable connection here with a meeting that he had with a representative of the immigrant investor fund and money flowing to the Auberge Grand-Mère. He could try and trivialize it away, but during the election campaign he said “He has not invested a damn cent in that”. Surely he must know who he is talking about.

The fact is we now know that $2.35 million was invested and funnelled into his own riding. I am sure the Prime Minister would never try to mislead Canadians during an election campaign, so why did he deny that that money was ever invested?

[Grants And Contributions, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know they changed the ground rules on the pension, but we should not be surprised they change it on just about everything.

In fact, the Prime Minister just reiterated what he said:

I receive members of parliament from both sides every day at 3 o'clock (now it is for photos) and visitors also come to see me...We shake hands, discuss things for two or three minutes and then they leave. This visit was of the same nature.

Now it is for photos. I could only imagine how many the millions could have been raised if they had stayed for six minutes in his office.

The Prime Minister needs to clarify this point. Did he have more than one meeting with the immigrant investors?

[Grants And Contributions, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about his involvement in arranging $2.35 million worth of immigrant investor funds for the Auberge Grand-Mère. I remind the House that the auberge had a golf course right next door to it, which the Prime Minister owned at the time. He said there was no conflict because the Quebec government administered that fund.

No such luck. In 1996 brokers decided where those immigrant investor funds were spent and the Prime Minister met with those brokers. Why is he denying the link between his meeting and those millions?

[Grants And Contributions, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the entire country knows that money was still owed to him in 1996. It was taken care of in 1999.

The Auberge Grand-Mère received, just for instance, $50,000 from economic development for Quebec, $60,000 in HRD wage subsidies, $165,000 in TJF grants, $615,000 in Business Development Bank money, and now a whopping $2.35 million in immigrant investor funds.

The Prime Minister needs to tell the House what impact that had on neighbouring real estate.