House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to discredit a public servant of long standing who is doing excellent work. He is doing his job with honesty.
The opposition parties had no problem with the ethics counsellor when they asked him to conduct investigations. It is only when the investigations failed to substantiate the opposition's charges that they began to discredit the ethics counsellor.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I reject the hon. member's questions, because they are not based on facts.
The Prime Minister provided the facts to this House and he has no authority to have documents published after he has sold his shares.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Howard Wilson told Newsworld:
I have access to all the documents. I saw all the documents. I was able to examine them. This is personal information on the parties, including people other than Mr. Chrétien, but I can confirm to my full satisfaction that his shares were sold in 1993 and that they were never back in his possession.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has cleared the air. He stated the facts from his place in the House of Commons. The problem is the fog that is being created by the Alliance Party in its desperate attempt to keep itself shored up in public opinion. Where does it stand on the economy? Where does it stand on the environment? Where does it stand on tax cuts?
None of these things matter to members of that party any more. Why do they not get real on matters of concern to Canadians? They realize there is nothing they can attack because the government is doing a good job, and in desperation they are turning to these unwarranted insinuations and innuendoes.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the first thing the hon. member might do is to ask Ted Hughes to look into the unwarranted assertions in his questions.
The Prime Minister has stated definitely from his seat in the House of Commons that he did not own the shares in question after he became Prime Minister. Those are the facts. When it comes to matters of the records of the company in question, he has no right because he is not a shareholder to have access to these records or any control over them.
The Prime Minister has been upfront and truthful. I wish it could be said in the same way of the allegations of the Alliance Party and the member who has just spoken.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to truth, the truth should start in the questions of the hon. member. What she alleges is not true.
The Prime Minister has been upfront, factual and truthful. He has said that he has not been involved in any conflict of interest. He has not done anything contrary to the ethics or the rules in question.
The hon. member ought to recognize that. She is using vague words. She is raising insinuations but she has provided no facts in support of her insinuations because what she says and implies in her questions is not true.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the public is obviously and definitely not applauding the Alliance for its unwarranted assertions. The Alliance is not using these opportunities to talk about the economy. It is not using them to talk about agriculture. It is not using them to talk about the environment. It is obviously because the public thinks we are doing a good job and it is a vote of confidence.
The Prime Minister has been factual. He has been truthful. Those who are asserting otherwise are terribly wrong, and they should admit it.
Prime Minister March 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has said in her question is not only wrong. In fact it is a terrible attempt to smear the Prime Minister, without any factual foundation.
The Prime Minister did not stand to benefit financially from any representations he made. He was owed a debt. The value of the debt would not change whether the value of the golf course went up or whether it went down.
I say to my hon. friend that she exemplifies how desperate she and her party are in raising these unwarranted assumptions. Why does she not get back to the real business of the country, the matters of real concern to Canadians?
Ethics Counsellor March 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion on which the hon. member bases her question is totally wrong. There was no withholding of evidence.
The ethics commissioner disclosed the letter before the committee as soon as he received in his own hands confirmation that the person who had written the letter was willing to have it disclosed.
To the hon. member, if she wants to be fair, it is about time for her to withdraw her unfounded allegations.
Ethics Counsellor March 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a report yet from the industry officials. I will endeavour to get one as soon as possible and inform my hon. friend.
However it gives me the opportunity to say again that the House and the country should note what the Prime Minister just said, that after he became Prime Minister he did not own the shares in question.