House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Ethics Counsellor March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will answer today for the Minister of Industry.
I do not think there is any basis for firing the ethics counsellor who, as I said in French, is a distinguished public servant of long standing and a person of integrity. He is doing a good job. Just because the hon. member does not want to accept that, it does not change the facts of the matter.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, insinuations are not facts. The hon. member is the one painting the situation black, after the Prime Minister has clarified on numerous occasions that there is no conflict of interest, because he sold the shares in question long before becoming Prime Minister. Those are the facts.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not misled the House. The insinuations made by the hon. member in his question are incorrect and he must retract them. They are totally unfounded.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no basis and no reason for a public inquiry. Just because the hon. member is concocting questions without basis, that does not provide a reason for a public inquiry.
I ask the Alliance Party again, why is it in effect confirming that the government and the Prime Minister are doing a good job in the areas of the environment, the economy, the work of the human resources department for children, on medicare and on a whole range of other matters? In ignoring questions on these issues, it is saying that we are doing a good job. I suppose we should thank the Alliance Party, but it deserves no thanks from Canadians for anything.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off on the wrong foot because he has not quoted me accurately as far as I can recall. I said that I would report on whether the relevant official had inspected the books of the company in question.
I want to confirm that the official in question attended at the office of the lawyers for the company in question. He took copies of the documents. He is examining them. When he has completed his examination, I am sure that the requirements of the law will be complied with.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no basis and no reason for an inquiry. The hon. member is wrong when he says that a conflict of interest has been established. What has happened in just the opposite. A conflict of interest has not been established.
I know the hon. member is desperate to keep himself afloat politically, but he should not do that at the expense of the work of this House. He ought to realize that his own desperation does not justify what he is trying to do now. It is wrong.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member is raising something that is not news. It was reported that the lawyer for the Prime Minister was involved in trying to get the debt in question settled that arose out of the shares being sold. This was reported in the National Post on January 23, 1999. I talked about this in the House in June 1999. This is old news. It has been reported. The hon. member is trying to develop something out of nothing and he ought to admit that.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has answered fully in this House. I think the hon. member should only blame himself. In trying to ask a question without basis, when it comes to bullets, he shot himself in the foot because there is no reason for an inquiry.
He is holding up the business of the country and is using question period instead of doing what the opposition is supposed to do, which is to ask questions on matters of importance and meaning to Canadians. Let him bear the burden of that himself.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for an inquiry. The Prime Minister has stated the facts from his place in the House of Commons. This has been confirmed by the ethics counsellor. This has also been confirmed by the decision of the RCMP that there is no basis to look into the matter further.
If the opposition is not asking questions it thinks should be asked on the economy, on agriculture or on the environment, let it bear the blame itself. Let it not throw the blame on anyone else.
It is the responsibility of opposition members if they think they do not need to carry on the work of the country as the opposition. Let them explain their lack. Let them explain their emptiness. Let them explain their failure to the Canadian people.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, he begins by trying to discredit a public servant of long standing. Now he is setting out to discredit the RCMP.
The RCMP operates at arm's length from the government. It has done its job. It has said that there were no grounds for continuing to investigate the matter. This is a fact that the opposition does not like but it is a fact all the same.