Stephen Harper

[Transport, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the transition disarray in this government just continues to get worse. Last week the transport minister announced almost $700 million in additional money for VIA Rail. No sooner was he done than the new Liberal leader promptly instructed VIA not to dare spend a dime of that money. Therefore, VIA gets the green light and the red light at the same time. We do not have any idea what track the government is on.

Is VIA supposed to spend this money or not?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister still has outstanding questions in front of the ethics counsellor.

Frankly, the Prime Minister or the new leader should be able to say whether these standards are acceptable to the government.

I am asking the question again, because we have asked questions but we have not yet got any answers.

The industry minister continues to give his prerecorded answers, scripted in advance. It is inappropriate for him to shirk this responsibility.

Has he consulted the new Liberal leader in order to determine whether his conduct meets the government's ethical standards?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same stonewalling as yesterday.

The ethics counsellor already gave the minister his judgment. It was not to be involved in the Irving file. He got involved. He is now forced to consult the ethics counsellor again.

Has the minister consulted either of his leaders to see whether his standard of behaviour on this file is acceptable to the government?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister has been repeatedly asked questions this week about his actions on the Irving file. Yesterday I reviewed his answers from Hansard and what I found was that he was giving the same pre-rehearsed, scripted response to every single question.

I would tell the minister that this is simply not good enough. I am going to ask one of the questions I asked yesterday and I expect a specific answer. Has he consulted the new Liberal leader to see whether his standards of actions on this file were acceptable?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the government were so confident of the minister's actions, it would let him answer his own questions.

The minister knew what the ethical guidelines of the government were and he did not follow them. He knew he did not follow them and now he will not resign. Now we have a new Liberal leader who has promised to deal with this government's ethics deficit.

I will ask the minister the same question I asked him yesterday. Has he consulted the new Liberal leader to see whether this standard of behaviour is acceptable?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows he should have delegated this signing authority. He had been subject to blackout on the Irving files. He has entered into a conflict or apparent conflict of interest more than once during this blackout. The minister has all but admitted this to the House by going back to the ethics counsellor and asking for retroactive permission.

Having failed to clear even the very low bar set by the ethics counsellor, would it not be appropriate for the minister to at least step aside while the ethics counsellor invents new reasons to get him off the hook?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the industry minister told me in the House that he was required to co-sign a $55 million deal for Irving after the ethics counsellor had told him he was subject to a blackout. However, under the Financial Administration Act, the minister clearly had the authority to delegate this signing authority.

The minister apparently chose not to delegate. This is yet another attempt by the minister to provide an explanation for his conflict that simply does not hold water.

Will the Minister of Industry resign?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the minister has asked the ethics counsellor now because he knows he should have asked then and he should have not done it. That is why he is asking now.

I will give another example. Once again, while under the ethics counsellor's blackout, in March 2003 the minister successfully lobbied cabinet for a financial aid package for the shipbuilding industry. The changes would result in direct benefit to the Irving business, one of the largest shipbuilders in the country.

On this conflict of interest, could the minister tell the House how he could not possibly have known that Irving would benefit directly from his decision in this matter?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he should be speaking to at least one of his leaders so we know whether that party thinks these are appropriate actions.

In May 2002, after the industry minister began lobbying for a bailout package for the Irvings, the ethics counsellor told the minister to stay out of these files, to stay out of decisions on Irving business. However in June 2003 we know that the industry minister actually co-signed a $55 million package for Irving, while under the blackout.

Why did he not consult the ethics counsellor on the deal before signing off on it?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am forced today to return to the industry minister. After staying at the Irving fishing lodge, the industry minister was subjected to a blackout on the Irving files by the ethics counsellor.

We have reviewed the industry minister's statements from yesterday and contrary to his statements, we believe he was involved in these files.

I will get to these conflicts of interest in a second, but my question for the minister is this. Has he tendered his resignation or has he spoken to the Prime Minister or the new Liberal leader about the appropriateness of his actions in this matter?