Stephen Harper

[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?

[Ethics, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has fired the Minister of National Defence for having done a favour for a friend and he said that the credibility of the government was affected. Yet it was the Prime Minister himself who did the same thing by helping friends in his riding and telling us that it was his duty as a good member of parliament.

How can the Prime Minister justify removing the defence minister for giving a favour to a friend when he set the standard himself in the Shawinigate affair?

[Government Grants, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to know that his defence is that he may be a lobbyist but that he is a really bad lobbyist. However he did not answer the question on whether he advised the Prime Minister.

I will ask my last supplementary. Did the solicitor general seek advice on ethics and did he examine the Prime Minister's visible or invisible code of ethical conduct before or after lobbying for his brother's college?

[Government Grants, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to press reports, he did a little more than that. He discussed these directly with the commissioner of the RCMP.

Since the Prime Minister has expressed concern about the ethical conduct of his ministers and has promised higher standards of behaviour, could the solicitor general tell us whether he informed the Prime Minister that he was lobbying his own department on behalf of his brother and, if so, did he tell the Prime Minister before or after he lobbied the RCMP?

[Government Grants, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we have new conflict of interest reports. We have learned that the solicitor general lobbied the RCMP, an agent for which he is directly responsible, to help his brother win a $3.5 million grant from the federal police force.

In this All in the Family episode, the solicitor general appears to have used his role as minister responsible for the RCMP to pressure for tax dollars for his brother's project.

Given the Prime Minister's newfound concern for ethics, how can the solicitor general justify his actions?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I acknowledged Mr. Mulroney's contributions, particularly to our trading relationships with the United States.

I think that if we were to look back at the record we would find that our party, under the leadership of my predecessor, Mr. Manning, and not just my predecessor as leader but my predecessor in Calgary Southwest, was consistently supportive of the Mulroney government's approach to opening up our trading relationship with the United States.

I challenge the hon. member to embrace this legacy by walking away from the party that has now embraced David Orchard and the extreme anti-free trade position. I challenge him to walk away from that kind of coalition and instead embrace our offer of a full coalition here.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate getting a very thoughtful question once in a while.

I think the comments by the agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance are absolutely correct, and boy, would we ever have a different agriculture situation if we had this guy over there instead of the present guy.

It was this government that agreed to tariffication, put supply management on the table internationally and began the process of change for those industries. In typical Liberal fashion, however, there was absolutely no plan for the next step. Even years later with new rounds coming up, there continues to be no plan, no proposals, no consultation, no way forward, just the great dream that everything can go back to the way it was. That is so typical of this Prime Minister's approach to life, not just to politics.

That is something the country will have to address and I am glad to see that our agriculture critic has been doing that. Long before I became leader, I know that he was thinking about it, consulting with the people in supply managed industries and looking at the strategies that may well have to be looked at when the implications of the tariffication process become clearly evident in the years and decades to come.