Stephen Harper

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is just an exercise of the government trying to repair its image, but when I look at the contents of this package, I fear it is much worse than that. It is an exercise in revenge. I want to go over some of the--

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that we are not here today because the government has to announce an important new step in the era of ethics. We are here today because the government's ethical conduct has been shameful.

Why are we here today? It is because in 1993 the government went coast to coast and promised Canadians an independent ethics commissioner. Year after year, and I cannot go through all the cases, the government has been confronted with scandal after scandal because it never fulfilled its promise during the 1993 election, despite repeated calls by this party and the other opposition parties.

In 1997 after the hard work of members of both houses of Parliament, including from our side the hon. member for Elk Island, the government received a draft code of conduct for members of parliament. Similarly it went through another two election campaigns and once again never acted on that. It went through scandal after scandal. The record is appalling.

Today we are here because we have in every major newspaper in the country mug shots of the former minister of national defence, two former solicitors general and two former public works ministers. Those are posted in every newspaper. They are posted on every bulletin board and, for all I know, in most police stations in the country.

What we are getting today is just an exercise in image building, but it is more. It is more than an exercise in image building. It is an exercise--

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked the ethics counsellor on June 11 to provide him with a comprehensive report of his activities and advice on September 30 of this year. It would be surprising to find out that this incident was not in there on September 30.

However I want to refer to one other incident. On May 28 the Prime Minister told the media in this country that he was not going to ask the ethics counsellor's opinion on the Holland College matter, yet he has asked his opinion on just about every matter that has been raised in the House.

Is he not going to admit to us that the reason he did not ask for the advice was that he already knew what it was; that it was unethical behaviour?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says last week. I will ask him to clarify that answer.

We know from testimony that has been given elsewhere that the ethics counsellor advises the Prime Minister and briefs him on question period responses. This matter on the Holland College dealings was raised in question periods last May and June.

Is he saying that he was never advised by the ethics counsellor before he answered questions in question period?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister's defence is not simply that he does not know the difference between right and wrong even when his own ethics counsellor tells him so.

I return. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and the former solicitor general all assured the House that there was no conflict of interest in the Holland College case. We know now that the former solicitor general knew otherwise and the ethics counsellor had told him in 1999.

When did the Prime Minister become informed of the ethics counsellor's position?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that is playing very tightly with what the ethics counsellor said.

The government knew the Holland College dealings constituted a conflict of interest three years ago. It knew that when the Holland College dealings were raised in the House last May and June by several members of the opposition and yet the former solicitor general, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister assured the House that no conflict existed.

Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House on this critical matter?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the former solicitor general after the ethics counsellor said that he had violated rules in the Holland College matter. Yet we now know that the government had advice from the ethics counsellor on this matter since 1999.

What good are any ethical guidelines if the Prime Minister allows his cabinet ministers to override them?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we are establishing a new tradition that the members of cabinet remain secret unless we ask about the latest changes.

This scandal dragged on for three weeks with considerable damage to the government. Does the Prime Minister admit that we could avoid this kind of thing in the future if he would agree to the opposition's longstanding demands, to his own 1993 election promise, and agree to have a fully independent ethics commissioner?

[Solicitor General of Canada, October 22nd, 2002]

We would think, Mr. Speaker, if they had a ministerial resignation to announce, it would be announced, not heard back in the lobby on Newsworld .

My question is simple. Since this is, according to the Prime Minister, the most honest minister in cabinet, would he agree to table the report on the former solicitor general's activities by the ethics counsellor?

[Solicitor General of Canada, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we just had the highly unusual exercise of being informed indirectly about the resignation of a minister, a minister we are now told was the greatest and most honest minister--