Herb Gray

[Prime Minister, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP confirmed that the Prime Minister acted properly. Over and over again the ethics counsellor confirmed there was no breach of ethics on the part of the Prime Minister.

Once again the Leader of the Opposition is failing Canadians. He is not doing his job by asking questions on matters of importance to Canadians. He does not care about softwood lumber. He does not care about agriculture. He does not care about the health of Canadians. He has failed. He should go, resign today.

[Prime Minister, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, acting as a member of parliament, did not arm twist. He made representations as all members of parliament do. He was not dealing in a matter connected with a property he owned. He was trying to assist the tourism industry of the area.

Speaking of ethical standards, what about the ethical standards not followed by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with that shameful lawsuit in Alberta?

[Multiculturalism, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should resign if he keeps making these unwarranted assertions and slurring a minister who has devoted her life to fighting racism and for multiculturalism. She spoke in a way that she agreed she should not have spoken. She said she made a mistake. She apologized.

I think we should all get together and join with her in the fight against discrimination and racism. This is what the country needs, not the unwarranted slurs and assertions of my hon. friend.

[Multiculturalism, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be stripped of his critic's position after his unwarranted assertions in his questions. The hon. secretary of state has recognized in her place in the House that she made a mistake. She fulsomely apologized.

I notice that the acting mayor of Prince George said in a news interview:

Well I'm very disappointed with her performance yesterday, but frankly Miss Fry has done some very good work on multicultural issues and racism issues and I appreciate that work.

The acting mayor went on to say:

—I would hope that they would look at the history and if it was simply a mistake made yesterday, we should forgive her—

[Auberge Grand-Mère, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The Prime Minister did not maintain control of the shares in the relevant period. He sold them before he became Prime Minister. The ownership of the shares was replaced by a debt which his lawyer worked in consultation with the ethics counsellor to have paid.

My hon. friend is only sullying his own reputation by making these unfounded allegations in his question. He started out with a good reputation. After today it certainly is sullied.

[Auberge Grand-Mère, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. The Prime Minister was not a shareholder of the company after he became Prime Minister.

As I just said, the hon. member is making insinuations that he must retract.

[Multiculturalism, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion that the secretary of state fabricated something deliberately is false.

If the hon. member is the kind of person he claims to be with respect to integrity, he would admit that, accept that, and let us move on to fight together against racism, to fight together against discrimination and to fight for the issues I thought were important to him.

I guess that is not the case, from the unfounded nature of his allegations against an immigrant to this country, a person of colour who has devoted her life to fighting against discrimination and racism and will continue to do so.

[Multiculturalism, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the hon. secretary of state has dealt with the matter in an appropriate fashion by admitting she made a mistake and apologizing for it. When someone does this, the traditions and conventions of the House are that the admission of error and the apology are to be accepted.

If that is not the case, then we should not be accepting what the Alliance member from Alberta said about his phony interviews. We have accepted that. I think, in fairness, the Alliance people should exhibit the same forbearance and acceptance of the apology and admission of mistake of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

[Multiculturalism, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state said yesterday that she had made a mistake and offered a total apology in that regard. I do not see why the hon. member and the House should not accept her statement in the same way we accepted the statement of his colleague with regard to his phony radio interviews. If we accept the one, I think, in fairness, we have to accept the other.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no basis and no reason for an inquiry. The facts have been brought out in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister himself.

If the opposition parties did not think that the ethics counsellor was a person of integrity who would do his job, why did they write to him last fall? Why did they write to him a few weeks ago to look into matters? By writing to him last fall and by writing to him again just a few weeks ago, they are in effect admitting that they are wrong in trying to attack his integrity. They accepted his role up to the point where he refused to be their lap dog. That is the only reason they are against him.