Stephen Harper

[Iraq, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have a government here that is indeed half-pregnant.

The government says it will only support military action if there is a second United Nations resolution, but I will quote from the January 31 edition of the Charlottetown Guardian . The Prime Minister said, “...Resolution 1441 will authorize action”.

Is he saying today that it does not authorize action or is this yet another flip-flop in the Canadian government's position?

[Iraq, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the past we have seen nations support a military action without sending forces, but this is the first time we have ever seen a country not support a military action and send forces anyway. What a bizarre position.

Let me get the Prime Minister to answer my first question. We have troops on the ground in the Iraq theatre, with British and American soldiers, being deployed. Are they going to stay there or not?

[Iraq, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Iraq is moving toward imminent crisis and military action. Canadian Forces have been on the ground there for some time. In fact, 150 military personnel are involved in joint command arrangements with British and American troops on the ground. Is this deployment continuing? Will these personnel remain in the event of war with Iraq?

[National Defence, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, they are discussing it all right, with as little understanding of the Canadian position as Canadians have.

Here is another embarrassment. We know that the government was trying to participate in the Iraqi conflict through back channels by sending the HMCS Iroquois to the Persian Gulf. Now the government's ancient helicopters are crashing, military personnel have been injured, and the ship is apparently returning home. What does the government have to contribute now?

[Iraq, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hope she will have more to say because that was an inadequate apology. But let us talk about another embarrassment.

After months of having no position on the Iraqi conflict, the government tried to pass itself off as an international mediator, but its attempts have apparently been dismissed out of hand by the White House and the Security Council.

What, if any, position does the government have now?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of embarrassment for the Liberal government. The member for Mississauga Centre has continued a long Liberal pattern of insulting our most important neighbour and trading partner, a pattern established by the Prime Minister, his former communications advisor, the member for Oakville, the member for Durham, and I could on and on.

Can the Prime Minister explain how any of this does any good for Canada?

[Ethics, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government for considering it, because take the case of Canada Steamship Lines. It has interests that overlap the activities of virtually every government department: transport, industry, revenue, environment, fisheries, natural resources, trade, foreign affairs, and of course finance. Any current or potential Prime Minister with such holdings is exposed to continual conflicts of interest.

Will the government bring in an ethics code that will disallow a Prime Minister from having any personal control over firms with extensive holdings?

[Ethics, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is what Erik Nielsen said and that is why the code is totally inadequate. Because of the Sinclair Stevens affair, the Parker report warned that family businesses or family firms with cabinet ministers would likely have to be sold to avoid conflicts of interest.

Will the government bring in an ethics code outlawing management of large private holdings by cabinet ministers?

[Ethics, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been using the Parker report on Sinclair Stevens to justify the special arrangements he made with the former finance minister, but the Parker report warned that so-called blind agreements cannot prevent conflicts of interest in the case of family businesses or family firms.

I ask the government, knowing this, why did the government allow these special arrangements with the former finance minister?

[Member for Surrey Central, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber work very hard but I want to mention something special about our colleague, the member for Surrey Central.

He became an MP in five years and eight months after immigrating to Canada, 2,005 days, a record in Canadian history. Today he has been an MP for exactly the same period of time.

During his two terms, in addition to serving his constituents well in the second most populous riding in the country, he has made a significant contribution to our Parliament. He not only actively participates in debates, he is in fact one of the most frequent speakers in the House.

He has introduced scores of motions and bills, among them recognizing foreign academic credentials, whistleblowers' protection, disallowance procedure for regulations and eliminating GST on top of other taxes.

He has been our deputy House leader and four times elected co-chair of the Joint House and Senate Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and, I should say, one of the only two opposition members to chair any committee.

He has broken the Parliamentary record for consecutive voting attendance.

It is no wonder that we call him, on this special day, the “iron man of the Canadian Parliament”.