Joe Clark

[Ethics, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, these rules of course were changed when this government came to office.

Was the former minister of finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the only minister covered by these changed guidelines, which allow updates on assets covered by a blind trust? If not, will the Prime Minister publish a list this week of the other ministers, past, present or in Denmark, who made use of this extraordinary provision?

However, if the member for LaSalle—Émard was the only one to use the loophole, was he the person who asked that the rules be changed in the first place, and why did the Prime Minister agree to those changes?

[Ethics, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a Venetian blind trust, which a minister can open or shut, so long as the ethics counsellor agrees. The guidelines say a minister can go back to his business “only in exceptional circumstances where an extraordinary corporate event is likely to materially affect the assets”.

I have two questions for the Prime Minister. How many times did the former minister of finance claim that exceptional circumstances warranted a meeting with his private shipping line? How did the contract with the Indonesian company constitute an extraordinary corporate event?

[Ethics, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister. I noted the acting Prime Minister indicated that the Prime Minister was called out of the House for urgent and unexpected reasons.

Would the acting Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to come back today and make a statement on motions outlining the policy regarding blind trusts and whether or not ministers of the Crown are allowed to meet regularly to be brought up to date on new ventures being considered by companies held in blind trusts?

[Ethics, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The Minister of Natural Resources has substantial holdings currently in a blind trust. Does he have an agreement that allows him to meet regularly with his trustee and/or company officials to discuss new business ventures?

[Ethics, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question which is for the Prime Minister is about the so-called blind trusts for ministers.

The ethics counsellor has revealed that the former Minister of Finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was allowed to receive regular updates about major new ventures by Canada Steamship Lines. That is a company in which the then minister has an ownership position and which is regularly affected by the laws, regulations and policies of the government.

How is that a blind trust? Why did the Prime Minister give the member for LaSalle—Émard these giant loopholes?

[Points of Order, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege.

In question period yesterday, the acting Prime Minister said that the government had no discernable information that Canada was the focus of a potential terrorist attack aimed at politicians, among others, yet, for several hours before that answer, the office of his colleague, the Minister of Industry, was quarantined by an anthrax threat.

I want to investigate whether the acting Prime Minister knew that when he answered, which would raise a prima facie question of privilege in the House.

[Iraq, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question which the Deputy Prime Minister can answer today.

Dr. Blix has just emphasized to the Security Council how important it is that his inspection team have access to intelligence information available to member states of the United Nations.

Has Canada acted directly to make available to Dr. Blix all intelligence information that has come to Canada's attention which might be useful to the UN inspection team in Iraq?

If Canada has not done that, would the Deputy Prime Minister explain why and would he undertake now to make all such information available to Dr. Blix from now on?

[Terrorism, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is an astounding statement in light of the fact that, on the basis of its intelligence, the United Kingdom has dispatched tanks to Heathrow airport. The United States has anti-aircraft weapons on the streets of Washington. As long ago as June 1998, the director of Canada's intelligence service warned:

With perhaps the singular exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist organizations active [in Canada] than any other country of the world.

What leads the government to believe that the threats, which are considered to be deadly serious in Britain and the United States, require no special measures to protect Canadians?

[Terrorism, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2001, three months before the al-Qaeda attacks, CSIS warned the government, “Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims and Canada a potential venue for terrorist attacks”. The government did nothing about that warning.

Now it is reported that CSIS has intelligence that al-Qaeda may be preparing strikes in North America, including Canada.

Are those reports wrong? Does CSIS say that there is no threat to Canada equivalent to the threat that has mobilized Britain and the United States?

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my second question is this. Do Canada's security officials believe that the al-Qaeda network has regrouped and established itself in parts of Iran and Iraq?