Herb Gray

[Ethics Counsellor, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, as I already have to other questioners from the opposition, that the ethics counsellor met with the Prime Minister on this matter. The ethics counsellor has given some proposals. The Prime Minister will be studying them and will reply further on them in due course.

When the leader of the Conservatives was on his feet earlier in question period he did not explain why he was down on his knees before the Alliance House leader. I did not know things had fallen to such a low state that he had to plead for survival on the floor of the House on his knees before the Alliance House leader. Perhaps he can explain—

[Ethics Counsellor, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong when he says that the ethics counsellor was forced to give his ruling. That is totally wrong.

The spokesman for the then Reform Party said “The person in the position right now is an honourable person. He is a man of integrity. He is a man that can be trusted”. That was a fact in 1995 and it is a fact today. On that fact the hon. member on behalf of his party is wrong.

They are casting an unwarranted personal slur on a person of integrity. They should apologize and withdraw that slur.

[Ethics Counsellor, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are wrong. The Prime Minister did not pressure the president of the Business Development Bank. I understand he made representations equivalent to what members of all parties do in carrying out their work as MPs.

I do not think it is correct to say that the ethics counsellor now says that what the Prime Minister did at the time was wrong. He has made proposals for consideration of changes in the rules eventually. The ethics counsellor categorically ruled. The opposition has said he was a man of integrity when he was appointed, and he is still a man of integrity. This man of integrity ruled that the Prime Minister did nothing wrong.

[Ethics Counsellor, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1995 the Reform, the party now called the Alliance Party, said about Mr. Wilson: “The person in the position right now is an honourable person. He is a man of integrity. He is a man that can be trusted”.

Nothing has changed in that regard. The nature of the appointment and the reporting mechanism was known at the time these words of praise and endorsement were stated for the ethics counsellor.

This Prime Minister and this government are the first in the history of Canada to appoint an ethics counsellor to give advice to MPs and ministers on matters of ethics connected with their work.

[Ethics Counsellor, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to reject the unwarranted slur of the Alliance Party on the ethics counsellor.

The appointment of Mr. Wilson was the subject of consultation with the previous Reform Party and the second opposition party. I understand the opposition members spoke publicly in praise of Mr. Wilson, so there is no basis for that unwarranted slur on him now just because he has not turned into a tame tabby cat for the opposition.

The premise of the question is wrong. The ethics counsellor did not find that the Prime Minister did anything wrong. It was just the opposite. He said the Prime Minister was doing what other people do as MPs in carrying out their jobs.

[Ethics Counsellor, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to reject the premise of the hon. member's question. As I understand it, the ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson, made some proposals, only, to the Prime Minister for his consideration.

The Prime Minister has joined with business people from all over Canada on the team Canada mission to China. He has not had a chance to consider these proposals. I am sure he will do so and reach conclusions on them.

As I understand it, the hon. member is completely wrong when he says that Mr. Wilson has stated a final conclusion as to what changes should be made in the rules. The Prime Minister will be considering Mr. Wilson's ideas in this regard.

[Points Of Order, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction to something I said during question period on Monday.

When answering a question about whether documents had been transmitted to the Russian authorities in the tragic case involving the Russian diplomat sent back to his home country, I said at that time that these documents had been transmitted.

I learned this morning that I was mistaken in this regard and I wish to apologize for any misunderstanding created, but I do understand that these documents will be in the hands of the Russians in the next few days.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken action under our mutual legal assistance treaty with the Russian federation.

All the documents have been transmitted to the Russian legal authorities. I am confident our embassy is pressing the authorities to take the appropriate action under the treaty and in light of the documents.

[Trade, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who my hon. colleague is trying to mimic but I do not think his question is getting anywhere.

The purpose of the meeting between our Prime Minister and the new U.S. president is not to reach deals. It is a “getting to know you” type of meeting. It is a meeting to exchange ideas on a whole range of subjects. I am sure our Prime Minister will speak strongly on behalf of Canada's interests, whether it is with regard to energy or any other subject.

[Lumber Industry, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was not questioning any of my colleagues, I was questioning the Leader of the Opposition. I think I should do so again for the mistaken premise of his question.

There is no threat or action on countervail against Canada on this matter. He is well ahead of himself on this subject. We are going to have useful and constructive discussions. Canada will be speaking with one strong voice on behalf of all the stakeholders and all Canadians on this very important matter.