Stephen Owen

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the President of the Treasury Board for that explanation, I think the concern that I and my colleagues had in committee with respect to the transition team inclusion, the extra amendment that would include this, was simply on the basis of an apparent unfairness, in that the impact would have a retrospective negative outcome for a particular person who was a member of the transition team.

I appreciate that explanation. I think the inclusion is appropriate on that ground so that there could be special circumstances that are considered.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in looking at the amendments, Motions Nos. 6 and 7, it is curious that in Motion No. 6, which the government seeks to delete, we are deleting the requirement of the commissioner to table reports in both Houses of Parliament on such matters. I am certainly very curious as to why that would be thought to be appropriate. That is Motion No. 6.

Motion No. 7 adds further sweeping powers to those of the commissioner to exempt people who might otherwise be precluded from registering as lobbyists. I can only recall the words of the Prime Minister when declaring publicly that a volunteer member of his transition team would be caught by the proposed accountability act and that it would not be appropriate for that person to register as a lobbyist for five years. A great deal was made of that, whether that person was a sacrificial lamb or whatever, and it was said that this showed the toughness of the act.

However, Motion No. 7 seems to provide an exception for that type of situation. While I am not necessarily debating against that provision, I find it curious that after making such a matter of it in the public as a demonstration of the strictness of the act, an exemption then would be allowed by order of the commissioner. I find that quite strange.

Also, while I am on my feet in the matter of this debate, I might say more broadly that the Liberal amendment put forward to ensure that the restrictions against lobbying for the period of five years not simply be against ministerial staff, public office holders and their senior staff, but should also be for senior members with official positions in the opposition and their senior political or policy staff, for a period of five years, for the obvious purpose of ensuring that when there is a change of government, the opposition House leader, party leader, deputy leader, whip and their senior staff, with their party in government, also would be precluded from registering as lobbyists, whether it is for three years or five years, and we are still debating those terms.

It would seem only logical, if the government, which was the opposition, were truly serious and genuine about getting money out of politics in the sense of political influence, of not going into the lobbying business and making money out of contacts in government. If the government were genuine about that, I would think that it would have accepted the opposition amendment to make sure this was balanced.

After all, we must make sure that the revolving door between positions of political influence and the lobbying industry, of which the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board have often spoken, is not a one way street. We must have balance in it. If the stated government objective is to be achieved, that balance is absolutely necessary.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. I appreciate your clarifying the situation so well.

With respect to Motion No. 1, we had considerable evidence and testimony before us in the special committee from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel on the infringement on the autonomy of the House of Commons and members of Parliament with respect to Bill C-2.

Numbers of amendments were made, including the one that is restored in Motion No. 1. They were made by committee in direct response to the advice that such an inclusion in the bill would offend the autonomy of the House and its members and disturb the appropriate independence between the members of Parliament, the House, with respect to both the executive of government and the judicial branch. I have great concern that this motion would reinstate the amendment that the committee took out on the recommendation or at least the strong advice of the chief law clerk.

Furthermore, with respect to Motion No. 6, this again reflects the replacement of a deletion by committee with respect to Mr. Walsh's advice of infringing the autonomy of the House. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he would explain exactly why he is continuing with that infringement after we had dealt with it at committee.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my remarks were a preamble to my questions and comments, at which point I deferred to my friend on a point of order.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition do not agree that these are merely technical amendments. We will be willing and anxious to debate them in the proper groupings.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that he has the responsibility to ensure that all legislation put before this House by the government is constitutional. He also knows that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has tabled a legal opinion that certain sections of Bill C-2, the accountability act, are unconstitutional. Some accountability.

Will the Minister of Justice please assure this House that he has a legal opinion that all sections of the accountability act are constitutional, and in particular, do not encroach upon the constitutional autonomy of this House and its members, and will he be accountable by tabling that opinion?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we have made a commitment to be there until next February and we should honour it, but we should also consider in an informed, analytical, cautious and therefore principled way whether we should extend or whether we should come back in a safe and appropriate withdrawal.

That decision has yet to be made in an informed way. We hear the member from Kootenay suggest that the Prime Minister brought this into the House for a decision when all indications are that the decision has already been made. I think that is inappropriate. That is disrespectful. We should be trying to convince the government to give us the opportunity to be informed through the relevant committees so that we can make an informed and principled decision.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question there, but let me respond to the issue of principle. Yes, the previous government took the principled decision on the best principles of humanitarian intervention to send our troops, together with our humanitarian aid workers and our governance advisers with the Canada Corps to supervise elections. Yes, that was principled, but it was time limited. There was a two year time limit.

If we are going to extend that, we owe it to those people, to the Afghans as well as the brave Canadians serving there and those who perhaps will be sent there in the future, to take the time, when we have it, to be informed and to be disciplined and respectful and therefore principled. No information is not respect.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend and colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

I join with all members of the House in expressing our pride, our concern, our support and our respect for the many Canadians serving in Afghanistan and who have served there over the last number of years. They are military personnel but they are also humanitarian aid workers, civilian police, members of the Canada Corps monitoring elections and other good governance advisers.

I intend to vote against this motion tonight. Having listened carefully to members speak today and throughout this evening, I do believe that a decision on this motion is premature. We have many months before we have to make this decision. To rush this debate with 36 hours' notice, with six hours of debate to make a life and death decision of this seriousness is a request to make an uninformed decision. The defence committee itself asked to hear expert witnesses to give information on how we are doing, what we intend to do, where we are going, what our exit strategy is, so that we can make an informed decision. That request was denied.

We need to hear from all of the relevant committees hearing witnesses before them from government and outside of government, to find out where we are and where we are going. It is disrespectful if we are asked to make a decision without this information. It is disrespectful to members of Parliament and through us to the public of Canada. Most of all, it is disrespectful to those brave Canadians who are serving or will go to serve in Afghanistan. That disrespect is dangerous. It is putting them in danger without our making an informed decision and having the respect to do that and demand that. In that sense it is unprincipled.

There is a principled reason that we are in Afghanistan right now. It is principled on the best principles of humanitarian intervention as they have developed over the last decade. Canada and members of this chamber have been participants in defining those new principles of humanitarian intervention. It is a just cause.

With those principles in mind, we fashioned a new international policy statement. Canadians in Afghanistan at this time are putting into practice for the first time the international policy statement developed by the previous government. It combines security forces with humanitarian aid workers, with good governance advisers, with civilian police trainers so that it is integrated, so that it is effective.

What is the principled approach going forward before we extend this mission? The principled approach is to get the necessary information to make an informed decision. Take the time that is necessary.

We have heard reference to the Dutch decision to extend. The Dutch parliament did not have 36 hours' notice for a six hour uninformed debate without witnesses, without adequate information. It was debated for 10 months. What is the rush at this time? We need the analysis once we have the information. Then we need to plan the next phase, the role definition, the objectives, the benchmarks, the exit strategy. What do we do in the next situation?

We have the time. We owe it to those Canadians who are bravely serving in Afghanistan and those who will in the future. We owe it to the Afghan people. It is our responsibility in pushing forward to protect as an international norm. We owe it to all of those interests.

In coming to this decision, and I think it is a principled one, I have been advised by my constituents of Vancouver Quadra in a way that is unprecedented in my, albeit short, five year experience in the House. In the last 24 hours I have had more immediate, voluminous and unanimous communication from my constituents to vote against this motion.

I had one single person, in a very advised way, suggest that I support it in a conditional way. I am advised by that and I take that very seriously, with my constituents, but with the principled approach of taking the time to be informed, to be principled, to be respectful, to be secure, and to go forward and take that time.

In voting against this motion tonight, I am not saying no as in “no, never”. I am saying no as in “no, not now”. It is disrespectful because it is uninformed, and it is therefore unprincipled, and I will not make that decision.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, there must be a full range of approaches. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has mentioned, the AU has not wanted non-African troops to be involved. That is not so much the problem.

It has been stated as well that Canada is the third largest contributor in terms of overall dollars, whether it is equipment logistics, humanitarian or food aid, whatever. Canada must move ahead on all these issues. A chapter VII Security Council resolution would assist all of the international community to put this whole range of pressures effectively on Sudan to try and end this humanitarian disaster.