Stephen Harper

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reference to the government sponsorship program, the Prime Minister said that a few million dollars may have been stolen in the process. He said that this corruption could be justified in the name of Canadian unity.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that corruption helps the federalist cause in Quebec?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the RCMP. We have now learned that the college of the solicitor general's brother received millions of tax dollars. It received it from ACOA when this minister was the minister for ACOA. It received the distinction of being the only college in Canada to receive transitional jobs fund money.

Why can the Prime Minister not admit the solicitor general was just wrong to pressure his own departments to fund projects spearheaded by his brother?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to see an Atlantic Canada where Atlantic Canadians do not have to have friends in the federal cabinet to get equal treatment from the government. Instead of rationalizing the pork-barrel politics that the government practices in the region, did the Prime Minister make any attempt before exonerating the solicitor general to seek any kind of ethics advice on the solicitor general's behaviour?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker--

[Ethics, May 30th, 2002]

Yesterday in defending the solicitor general, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that a minister has a right, even a responsibility, to lobby officials or agencies under his direct responsibility to help constituents, friends, whoever.

Does the Prime Minister see no ethical difficulty in cabinet ministers acting as lobbyists for some citizens and institutions rather than treating all people fairly and impartially under the law?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the ethical standards of this government.

Yesterday in defending the solicitor general the Prime Minister indicated--

[Ethics, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of ministers of the crown is to act in the interests of all Canadians, not as private lobbyists.

I have a second question. For days members from all parties have been asking the minister of immigration to clarify statements he made as a minister of the crown contradicting himself on whether he stayed at the Boulay chalet.

I am asking the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to stop stonewalling on this and allow the minister of immigration to answer this question. Why did he contradict himself?

[Ethics, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get clarification on something the Prime Minister said earlier in question period. We want to get to the bottom of the ethical standards of the Prime Minister and the government.

Is it really his position that a minister of the crown has not only the right but the responsibility to directly lobby officials or agencies under his direct supervision to get favours for friends or family members? Is that really his position?

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we will see whether the counsellor will be fully independent.

We have all these contradictions. On Thursday the Prime Minister stood behind the public works minister. On Sunday what he did warrants removal from cabinet. Mr. Gagliano was removed and then rewarded to Denmark. We could go on and on.

I want to ask one question about the Prime Minister's actions of last weekend. When exactly did the Prime Minister learn of the contract the Minister of National Defence gave to his former girlfriend?

[Ethics, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday the Prime Minister admitted there were ethical problems. Now he is back to rationalizing his own actions again.

The Prime Minister has one ethical problem after another: the public works minister, the solicitor general, I could go on and on. Even the Deputy Prime Minister now says that some Canadians were offended by his behaviour during the Shawinigate affair.

Having failed to establish in nine years clear ethical standards for his cabinet, for himself and for his government, will he now act and appoint a fully independent ethics commissioner?