Stephen Harper

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister could have been told about these charges against his company the public should have been told as well.

To recap, the former finance minister knew about the dumping charge in March, he was briefed on it twice and settled for a guilty plea in November. The former finance minister's relationship with his company is supposed to be arm's length, not hands on. How can Canadians be assured that for these six months the former minister did not have input into the final settlement?

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister's company was charged last March. In November, CSL reached a plea bargain arrangement with the government. We now know that the former minister was briefed twice during this period.

Under the ethics code, why was the public not informed of this as openly as the minister was?

[Ethics, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask questions about the operation of the government's ethics code and so-called blind trusts.

The former finance minister's company was caught and charged with dumping oil into Halifax harbour last March. The former finance minister then received special briefings on the incident. Under the ethics code, why did this incident with Canada Steamship Lines require the direct knowledge or involvement of the former finance minister?

[Ethics, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with the Prime Minister on the sweetheart deal he gave the former finance minister which allowed him to run Canada Steamship Lines while he was writing Canada's tax laws.

The only answer the Prime Minister has given us is that “if it was good enough for Sinc Stevens it is good enough for me”. Is that really his position?

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to the question of military action.

The HMCS Iroquois has been sent to the Persian Gulf to join other Canadian ships. The defence minister admitted yesterday that these ships could be double hatted for both the war on terrorism and operations in Iraq.

Will the government admit that it has already agreed to contribute to military action in Iraq through back channels?

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said weeks rather than months, I suppose so we are creeping toward a position here.

Resolution 1441 states that there must be full compliance or Saddam Hussein will face serious consequences. The common interpretation of these consequences is military action.

What is the government's interpretation of serious consequences? Is it military action or is it anything else?

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today the United Nations Security Council will be discussing what to do about Iraq. Some nations, France, Germany and, reportedly, Canada as well, believe in a timeline of some months. Others, the Americans and British, apparently believe a deadline of a matter of weeks should be set, perhaps as little as two weeks.

Does the Prime Minister have a view on how much more time Saddam Hussein should be given to disarm?

[Foreign Affairs, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the British government is not confused, that is not what it is saying at the United Nations.

So far, the Prime Minister has a history of flip-flopping on this matter.

On January 25, the Prime Minister did not know if a second resolution was needed. Four days later, he said the first resolution was enough. On February 11, the Prime Minister voted against a second resolution. The next day, he said he supported a second resolution.

What is the Prime Minister's position today?

[Foreign Affairs, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that confusion is not just among all opposition parties, but Canadians and foreign governments around the world as well.

I go back to January when the French and German governments were already complaining and calling on Canada to take some kind of a position. Yesterday the British ambassador to the United Nations stated “Canada will have to take a position...on one side or the other. It is decision time”.

I ask the Prime Minister, which side of the fence does he find himself on today?

[Foreign Affairs, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is increasing confusion about the government's position on Iraq.

I offer the following chronology of confusion. In December the Prime Minister said that there could be no action without the approval of the United Nations. On January 23 he said that with evidence from the allies he would support action. On Tuesday he said that Canada would not join a coalition of the willing. Yesterday he was back on the fence.

What is the Prime Minister's position of the day?