Stephen Harper

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if this advice was so terrific and so memorable, one would think the minister would have been able to remember it yesterday.

We all remember the minister lobbying the RCMP for funding for his brother's college. I want to ask the minister something. Will the minister confirm that Everett Roche, his close friend who received this contract, was, 10 days later, appointed to the body charged with deciding the funding application for the Solicitor General's brother?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the contract was sole sourced and that there was no proper tendering process.

The contract was given to a partnership. Everett Roche is the firm's principal consultant. He signed the contract. The correspondence was directed to Everett Roche. He obviously negotiated the contract. He directly benefited from it.

Is it really going to be the government's position that it is okay to funnel money through to friends if it is done through a firm?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to the Solicitor General's contracts for friends scheme, the Prime Minister said that there was no problem.

There are problems. Everett Roche is a friend of the minister. He was the minister's two-time official agent. Public money was paid to the friend of the minister. The minister's office hired this friend and broke the rules in so doing.

Why did the Solicitor General award an untendered consulting deal to his friend?

[Government Contracts, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again with the Solicitor General. This man is responsible for important security matters. We expect a half answer to an intelligent question

He said earlier that he was aware of this contract. We can get the details later and we will get them. Why does he not just come clear with us and tell us when he became aware of this contract?

[Ethics, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to avoid withdrawing his own proposal for a double standard between MPs and cabinet ministers.

The Prime Minister is proposing an independent ethics counsellor for backbenchers and their spouses, but a carefully chosen duty counsel for himself and his cabinet.

Will the Prime Minister pledge to withdraw this proposal and propose instead an independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?

[Ethics, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we will see if he intends to proceed with it.

We all know what he is trying to do. He is not fooling anyone. He has scandals and conflict of interest problems with his cabinet and instead of dealing with those he is trying to insist that somehow there are ethics problems with ordinary members of Parliament, and there is not.

If an independent ethics commissioner is good enough for backbench MPs, it should be good enough for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing a truly independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?

[Ethics, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister about his new ethics package coming out of the throne speech. This package sets a new standard for double standards, an independent ethics counsellor for MPs and their spouses but the current lapdog arrangement for cabinet ministers. What the Prime Minister wants to do is have control over people who do not make the decisions around here and have no control over the people who do make the decisions.

Will the Prime Minister agree to withdraw this proposal?

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in all of that the Prime Minister failed to say whether he is working with our allies or not, so let me ask the question a different way.

Yesterday evening in the House the defence minister suggested that U.S. policy in Iraq has not been rules based or consistent with international law. Specifically he compared American policy to “the law of the jungle”. To be clear, is this the government's evaluation of the American approach to Iraq?

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has come a ways from saying that he needed proof.

There are also mixed signals from the government on its willingness to act on Iraq. So, to be clear, is the government now saying that it is standing with the allied coalition, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and others, demanding that there be clear consequences for Saddam Hussein for failure to comply with the United Nations resolutions?

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks the government's position on Iraq has been unclear and shifting. So to be clear now on the Iraqi threat, does the government now accept reports from security agencies in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, including CSIS, that Saddam Hussein represents a significant international security threat, that he has been developing weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear, and that he would be willing to use these against his neighbours?