Herb Gray

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is that, long before the Prime Minister became Prime Minister, the legal financial links of ownership had been completely severed and, during the period in question, Mr. Prince owed the Prime Minister money, but had no interest himself in the golf club. That is the truth. Those are the facts.

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the hon. member ought to do is look at the agreement of September 29, 1999, between Mr. Prince's firm and the person to whom he sold the shares, Mr. Michaud and his firm.

Mr. Prince says that he received legal advice that Akimbo, his firm, retained legal title to the shares since November 1, 1993. This is what Mr. Prince said in a document dated November 1999 confirming that he owned the shares all along, contrary to what my hon. friend says, who once again is embarrassing herself by her inaccuracies.

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the testimony of Mr. Duhaime is that he did not make reference to golf course clients with respect to the golf course at Grand-Mère. He spoke of clients generally.

If the hon. member wants to keep the respect of the House, which with her questions she lost a long time ago, she ought to quote accurately because the facts are that the golf course and the hotel had no legal, financial or ownership links between them from a period six months before the Prime Minister assumed his responsibilities and the procedure at the relevant time—

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, will the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge that 82% of Canadians say that the opposition is wrong in pursuing these questions and that it should get on with other things?

Why does he not listen to Canadians who say that they want real questions on real issues of concern to real Canadians. Where are the questions about softwood lumber? Where are the questions about agriculture? Where are the questions about the economy?

Nothing is there on those real questions. The official opposition is derelict in its duty to Canadians and it ought to apologize to them.

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has not accurately quoted the testimony of Mr. Duhaime. I will translate freely from the French.

It says there are contracts between the auberge and its “clients”. Obviously there are clients, golfers, who go to the auberge from all the golf courses in the area.

The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister did not have any financial interest in the golf course during the time he made inquiries about a loan by the Business Development Bank to the auberge, so the hon. member ought to withdraw his unwarranted allegations. He is just embarrassing himself by continuing them.

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. According to my information on Mr. Duhaime's testimony, he did not say that there were financial connections or property connections between the auberge and the golf club during the period of time at issue. So there is no contradiction. The Leader of the Opposition misquoted Mr. Duhaime.

[Multiculturalism, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Kamloops, according to a press report in the Calgary Herald , speaking of the secretary of state with respect to Kamloops, said:

—she says she's sorry, and let's move on—I accept it as a full and unequivocal apology.

If the mayor of Kamloops under these circumstances is willing to accept what the secretary of state has said, the full and unequivocal apology, why is the hon. member and his party not big enough to act with the same degree of class? What is wrong with him?

[Multiculturalism, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has shown why the Alliance Party has been running out of steam. It is the same old stuff, in spite of the clear answers that I have given and I repeat. The hon. secretary of state recognized she made a mistake. She then apologized to the House.

If the hon. member and her party were serious about respecting the House and treating it seriously themselves, they would accept the apology and get back to their job as the opposition of asking questions of importance to Canadians.

[Prime Minister, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason, there is no basis for an inquiry. The RCMP said there was no reason to continue these inquiries. The ethics counsellor confirmed that there was no conflict of interest. Most importantly, the documents tabled in the House of Commons show once again, clearly, that there is no conflict of interest.

I think we can ask the member why, once again, he is contradicting his own House leader and calling for an inquiry following the tabling of the record of sale.

[Prime Minister, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, no.