Stephen Harper

[National Defence, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, of all the embarrassing legacies of this government, perhaps the worst is in national defence. Today we have the entire Sea King fleet grounded. This is 10 years after the Prime Minister eliminated the replacement program with the stroke of a pen, and after 10 years of budget cuts by the new Liberal leader and 10 years without a contract to get new helicopters.

Is the Prime Minister not embarrassed to be leaving office after a decade with no replacements for the Sea Kings?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of sad that after 40 years in public life I have to inform the Prime Minister that part of running the country is having comprehensible ethics standards and an ethics code that is actually employed.

It is unacceptable that the Minister of Industry stayed at the Irving fishing lodge. It is unacceptable that he vacationed with a health sector lobbyist when he was the Minister of Health. It is unacceptable that the Ministers of Labour, the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Human Resources Development accepted gifts.

If these examples are acceptable, can the Prime Minister tell me what conflicts of interest are unacceptable?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story. They say they will correct their behaviour but then they claim they have done absolutely nothing wrong. Why correct their behaviour if they have done nothing wrong? Nothing but contradictions.

When the government House leader stayed at the home of a wealthy advertising executive he was forced to resign as public works minister. The industry minister, while he was health minister, stayed at the lodge of a wealthy industrialist in the company of a health care lobbyist and he is allowed to keep his job. I ask the Prime Minister, what is the difference?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister admitted violating the ethics code by accepting a significant gift from the Irvings in the company of former Governor General Roméo LeBlanc. However, after apologizing, he tried to excuse his behaviour by saying yesterday “...any obligation I have is to Mr. LeBlanc, not to the Irvings”.

Just so we can be clear, if the environment minister has no obligation to the Irvings why is he cutting a $1,500 cheque to the Irvings and not to Roméo LeBlanc?

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister apparently was given guidelines by the ethics counsellor. He chose to ignore them anyway and now he is going back to him. I guess that is how it works over there.

The Prime Minister seems okay with these ethical lapses. There is a code of conduct. There are clear guidelines. There are not supposed to be any gifts over $200.

I ask the Prime Minister, could he tell the House what undeclared gifts over $200 he has accepted?

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants us to deal with bigger issues, then give us the leader who has the mandate to deal with them, which is the new leader.

I invite the Prime Minister to take a look at section 20 of his code of conduct. I will read it for the Prime Minister:

Gifts...including those described in section 21 that could influence public office holders...shall be declined.

This refers to gifts of over $200.

Does the Prime Minister have trouble understanding his own code of ethics?

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was out of town, he will know that the labour minister apologized for unethical behaviour, the environment minister has apologized, and the industry minister has apologized and asked the ethics counsellor to revisit his actions. However, the Prime Minister floats into town today and says apparently that he thinks he has the right to go to the Irving lodge whenever he feels like it.

Is the Prime Minister reneging on the apologies? Is he actually saying that his ministers' behaviour is acceptable?

[Ethics, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a matter that was asked about earlier in question period.

On October 23 the Minister of Industry told the hon. member for St. John's West, regarding the fishing trip:

--as I have said, at the time this occurred I was minister of health and, for one reason or another, I did not perceive a conflict.

Could the Minister of Industry explain how, when he was health minister going to a fishing lodge owned by the Irving family with an Irving family member who was also a health lobbyist, it did not constitute a conflict of interest? How could he possibly believe that?

[Ethics, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says I should know. I have to say, like the rest of Canadians, I am really confused by what is going on.

Let me go to the ethics disarray in the government. Last week we had the industry minister's half-hearted apology. He has now gone to the ethics counsellor looking for retroactive permission for his actions.

The minister never reported the infamous fishing trip. His excuse was that he was health minister at the time. However, it turns out he was accompanied on the trip by a health lobbyist, who also happens to be an Irving family member.

Could the minister explain why he has broken every rule from A to Z?

[Government of Canada, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if he thinks he has answered the question, he had better give the answer to his new leader.

This is another example of confusion. The Minister of Justice said that the new Liberal leader is paralyzing the government. The government can no longer function this way. The Bloc Quebecois motion is part of the Constitution; in other words, the new leader of the party in power must take his place as prime minister as soon as he is elected.

Is that not why the government should vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois motion?