Joe Clark

[Ethics, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport told the House “categorically”, to use his word, that the member for LaSalle—Émard absented himself “from any cabinet discussions dealing with the marine industry”.

Is a record kept of the occasions on which a minister of the Crown recuses himself or herself, that is, steps aside, from a cabinet decision because of a potential conflict of interest? Would the government publish the record of the number of times the member for LaSalle—Émard took himself out of cabinet discussions for that reason during the period when he was minister of finance?

[Points of Order, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask that you review a significant change between what the Prime Minister said during question period yesterday and what he is recorded as saying in Hansard .

When speaking on rules respecting blind trusts, the actual words used by the Prime Minister were, and I quote, “It was used by apparently two ministers” of the previous government. In Hansard that answer is changed to, and I quote:

It apparently was used by two ministers--

The words that were actually spoken stated categorically that there was use of those rules, and the word “apparently” qualified the number of former ministers the Prime Minister alleged were involved.

The change that was made in Hansard moved the word “apparently” in a way that would suggest the Prime Minister was not making a categoric accusation. Particularly in light of the Prime Minister's answer today, in effect telling us that what he said yesterday was wrong, it would be interesting to know who moved the word and why.

I note in passing, Sir, that the Prime Minister also said explicitly that I personally established the rule in question. That is not the case and I presume the Prime Minister merely misspoke himself again.

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, more than most businesses, the shipping industry is driven by tax policy. Companies are registered in countries where taxes are lower. Flags of convenience fly from tax havens. Tax avoidance is a normal business practice for shipping companies.

Yet, the Prime Minister permitted his former finance minister to be involved in a tax sensitive business while he was minister responsible for the tax system.

To protect the integrity of his government, did the Prime Minister ensure personally that his then minister of finance stepped aside from every tax issue that might have been of interest to Canada Steamship Lines?

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that he had checked the file and then he stated categorically that the loophole in the blind trust had been used by apparently two ministers of the previous government.

Does he stand by that accusation against two unnamed ministers of the former government or does he wish to correct the record?

[Iraq, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government about a high level meeting, to which Canada was not invited, on post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq. The minister said, “We are concentrating at the time on ensuring a peaceful resolution”. Everyone hopes for that.

If war occurs, there will be an urgent need for reconstruction. Canada has the experience and reputation to play a leading role. Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree to make a detailed statement in the House before we rise on Friday outlining specific measures Canada is taking or planning to respond to the ravages of war in Iraq or beyond?

[Ethics, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in an earlier answer said that the loopholes in the blind trust rule that he has used were used by two former ministers of a former Progressive Conservative government. I believe, sir, that is not the case.

I would ask the Prime Minister, who said he has seen the documents, to table those documents, or at the very least, to stand now and give the names of those ministers in the House. If he requires the approval of the former prime minister to release information relative to that government, I can tell him he has that approval.

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true.

Despite the confusion about the government's position on Iraq, Canada still has the experience and the reputation to play a leading role in any reconstruction in Iraq.

This weekend the U.S. administration held a high level meeting to review plans for reconstruction in the event that Saddam Hussein leaves or is overthrown. The meeting discussed the role of both U.S. and international agencies. Other countries participated in that meeting, including Great Britain and Australia.

Will the Prime Minister advise whether Canada took part in that meeting? Was Canada even invited?

[Ethics, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister changed the rules on blind trusts for ministers. The ethics counsellor claims that was the advice of Mr. Justice Parker but the Parker report described the loophole the Prime Minister used as undesirable. He said “Instead, hard decisions must be made. Those assets that have to be divested should truly be divested”.

Before the Prime Minister decided to change the rules for his cabinet, did he ask the member for LaSalle—Émard to make the hard decision and truly divest his assets, that is, to choose between his private company and his public duty?

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, so he can run the Department of Finance and CSL at the same time.

Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the code of conduct guide for ministers. The code says, “Ministers and Secretaries of State are held accountable by the Prime Minister for their adherence to the code's provisions”.

Is it the Prime Minister's position that he has been fully briefed on all the relevant details of his former finance minister's dealings with Canada Steamship Lines? Will the Prime Minister guarantee personally that the letter and the spirit of the code of conduct were followed at all times in--

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Until 1994 the rules on blind trusts prohibited absolutely cabinet ministers from personally intervening in any discussion or decision making that may affect assets held in that blind trust.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he changed those rules to allow personal interventions by ministers and will he tell the House why he changed those rules?