House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Ethics Counsellor February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the Conservative Party admitted to the press that he had absolutely no proof of wrongdoing and told the journalists “Let's leave it that I am fishing at this stage”. Yes he is, and he has come up empty once again.
Ethics Counsellor February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, let me read from the letter dated January 29, 2000. It states:
My conclusion, on November 21, 2000, was that “the Prime Minister, in calling the President of the BDC, did not violate any rule which has been established by the Canadian Government in terms of Ministers dealing on behalf of constituents with government agencies”.
The ethics counsellor went on to say that the ownership of those properties were transferred in 1993 before the now member for Shawinigan became Prime Minister of Canada.
Grants And Contributions February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been looked into by an independent ethics counsellor.
What has not been looked into by an independent counsellor is the fact that the leader of the Alliance has personally benefited from public funds to the tune of $800,000. That has never been looked into but may in a court of law in the province of Alberta.
Grants And Contributions February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member who is right. Who is right is the gentleman, and the only gentleman, who has done an objective analysis of this issue.
He is not part of a partisan campaign. He was not part of the same nonsense that was raised during the election and failed to persuade the people of Canada. That is the ethics counsellor who has answered every question with a clear statement that the Prime Minister has acted with integrity. That is who is right.
Grants And Contributions February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would have no reason to know what the immigrant investor fund is investing or not investing. It is administered by the government of Quebec, and the member ought to know that.
Today is February 8. As recently as January 29, the ethics counsellor wrote to the Leader of the Opposition in a two page missive in answer to the latest allegations: “Therefore it has been my position that the Prime Minister had no financial links with either the golf course or the auberge”. It is time to stop these scandalous attacks on the Prime Minister.
Ethics Counsellor February 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has written recently to the Leader of the Opposition and has responded to the most recent correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition. He has made crystal clear that all these matters, all the allegations being raised today, have been addressed. There were no private benefit by the Prime Minister whatsoever and no conflict of interest.
If the member wants to talk about private benefits from public funds to leaders in the House, we could talk to the leader of the Alliance Party.
Auto Industry February 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Essex for her question. I acknowledge the interest of the member for Brampton Centre and many others in this place about the health of the auto industry.
Yesterday I spoke with the international president of DaimlerChrysler. I met with Mr. Buzz Hargrove from CAW last night. I offered the assurance of the government that we want to work with both the industry and the union to assist in the transition for those who for the moment have lost their jobs because of the downturn.
We stressed quite strongly with DaimlerChrysler our interest in seeing both R and D in Canada continue and a new product line for the Pillette Road plant.
Government Grants February 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to invite the member to meet with me and I will give him a full briefing. I also would be happy to table before the House a full briefing.
Perhaps the member opposite does not realize it, but today he, and yesterday his colleague, mixed up several different files and several different organizations.
The fact of the matter is that the CCIP is a good program. Shawinigan was only one of 22 communities across Canada that received funding for this program. According to today's Globe and Mail , its own analysis shows that Shawinigan deserved—
Government Grants February 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a routine audit of the program, as is done on a regular basis, demonstrated that some $98,000 worth of expenditure funds that had been transferred had not yet been accounted for. The department, taking routine measures, sat down with the receiving organization and came to an agreement to recover those funds. This is the purpose of the audit process when it is done on an ongoing basis.
Government Grants February 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite keeps mixing up a variety of different files. It appears to me her only purpose seems to be to want to try to malign the reputation of people without proper examination of the facts.
The reality is that there was an overpayment which has been dealt with. Funds are now in the process of being returned by the agreement of all sides.
With respect to the RCMP, if the member has any evidence whatsoever that she thinks warrants an RCMP investigation, she should pass it on to the RCMP. If she is interested in justice, she should allow it to do its job before she attempts to carry on as she has, smearing on the floor of the House the reputations of many people. It is—