Stephen Owen

[Indian Specific Claims Commission, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2001-02 annual report of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.

[Aboriginal affairs, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the first nations governance act is before the committee of the House of Commons at this time. Many people have expressed their concern about it, their support for it and their protests against it. This is normal in this process. Amendments will come forward. They will be considered by the House. Once the bill is passed in its final form, regulations will be considered and those will be discussed with the aboriginal community of this country as well as in this House and with other Canadians.

We are sure that in the long range this will work for the benefit and raise the quality of life of aboriginal people across the country, and it will be changed as it must be to ensure that.

[Aboriginal affairs, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the first nations governance act is of great importance to all people in Canada, but it is not the only thing that is on the minds of Canadians and aboriginal people in the country. The government has committed over $2.2 billion additional dollars in this year's budget to deal with a whole range of issues, including clean drinking water, waste water systems, further education and health care for Inuit and first nations people. There is a whole range of initiatives as well as other legislation, the statistical and financial institutions act and the independent claims commission act.

The first nations governance act is only one piece in a whole comprehensive list of initiatives that the government is working on with aboriginal people to accomplish.

[Aboriginal affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 is proceeding through committee. It will come back to the House and be voted on. There will be regulations put forward and established over the next three years after the bill has been passed. There will be many opportunities for aboriginal people as well as people in the House and across the country to express their concerns about it or their support for it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation the hon. member refers to is proceeding through committee. It is being changed along the way. Canadians are expressing their concerns and support for it in their own way. They have done that through consultations and presentations to the committee. They will continue to do that, some in protest and some in support.

This is one aspect of the government's comprehensive support for aboriginal people in this country, including more than $2.2 billion added to aboriginal spending in the last budget.

[Western Economic Diversification, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her question but also for her dedicated and effective work in launching, as my predecessor and minister responsible for the federal government, the Vancouver agreement.

I am pleased to advise the House that the federal government has invested a further $10 million in the Vancouver agreement to be matched by $10 million from the province of British Columbia. This will go toward the revitalization of the downtown east side of Vancouver together with the partnership of the mayor of Vancouver, past and present, and will help to make that community safer, more secure and healthier, and it will create jobs and business opportunities, restore cultural places--

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member confuses it again. Canada is not a member of the Security Council at this time. We are attempting, through our good offices, to encourage the members of the Security Council to put forward and support such a resolution.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mixes up two important issues. The first one has to do with the inspections that were being undertaken under the leadership of Hans Blix to determine whether the disarmament order was or had been complied with. The other issue has to do with bringing the leader and his co-conspirators of this odious regime before a court of law to be tried for war crimes.

The inspection of course was underway. It was making progress. Inspector Hans Blix was reporting out on a regular basis to the United Nations Security Council. The serious consequences in 1441 had not yet been determined to have been required because the inspection was not finished.

The Canadian role was quite straightforward. As a matter of fact, the week before war was declared, the lead editorial in the Los Angeles Times supported by name the Canadian attempt to have a set deadline, clear benchmarks and the serious consequences spelled out in a further resolution. That was all underway and it was supported by many people. That was simply the timing that we felt should be set explicitly.

With respect to the war crimes tribunal, this is a matter of setting up an appropriate tribunal to try someone for serious crimes against humanity in a court of law, in accordance with rules of evidence and rights of accused, but in public before the whole world to ensure that justice is done and the many victims of this odious regime see some satisfaction through those criminals being brought to trial. That is something quite separate from the inspection regime that was underway, was working and Canada, in its wisdom and in its friendship with the United States, the friendship of positive criticism and advice, suggested that we go to a further resolution.

Unfortunately that was not followed but here we are together wishing our friends and allies, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, Godspeed in their efforts in Iraq.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo.

At this challenging time of terrorism and war, we as Canadians are examining our principles and our relationship to the United States and to the world. It is important that we avoid simplistic notions of for or against, all right and all wrong, and once and for all. The issues are complex, the context shifts and global relationships are increasingly interdependent. Absolute positions can bring short term confidence, but they are brittle and confine us over time.

Canadians and Americans relate closely to each other on multiple levels: family, community, culture, economy, environment and security. Yet we often differ on attitudes to health care, gun control and capital punishment. Internationally, we have parted company on treaties relating to landmines, children's rights, climate change, war crimes tribunals and, most recently, the timing and conditions on action to disarm Iraq; not whether to disarm, but when and how.

The Canadian government decided that the invasion of Iraq was premature, the case of weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaeda not convincingly made, the requisite international support not assembled, the last resort of war not yet reached. Our attempt to build Security Council consensus through a further resolution with clear benchmarks, a set deadline, and the explicit consequences of armed invasion was unsuccessful. That the U.S. government came, on balance, to a different conclusion, does not affect our friendship but rather demonstrates our independence of thought and action.

Neither Canadians nor Americans are unanimous in their opinions. Some of America's most respected political thinkers agree with the Canadian decision: historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Joseph Nye, the dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, for instance. Not having agreed with the invasion of Iraq at this time is not anti-American. However we must guard against our internal political debate becoming anti-Canadian.

Canada will continue to support a multilateral approach to complex global issues. This is consistent with our modern history and our mediation role that is respected internationally. Immediately for Iraq it means encouraging a UN mandate for humanitarian relief and reconstruction, and a Security Council resolution to establish an ad hoc war crimes tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and his barbarous regime.

More broadly, it requires fine tuning of Canadian foreign policy to closely align our diplomatic, defence, development and trade initiatives. Canada is a trusted international facilitator of dispute resolution. We are the acknowledged expert in peacekeeping. We are a respected contributor to humanitarian relief and development. We also are successful global traders. This is a unique set of attributes. Budgets are being increased and mandates reviewed. We must integrate our policies for optimum effect.

We know that the security, prosperity and quality of life of Canadians are enhanced by the increased opportunities of those in other parts of the world. Coordinating our defence and peace initiatives with our aid to civilian populations caught in conflict, linking trade agreements to human rights, environmental and demographic guarantees, and offering our “good offices” to mediate conflicts together present a coherent, positive internationalist agenda.

Let us stand together in the House, of all places, for these proud traditions and future leadership.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises the very good example of the entrepreneurialism of Rocky Mountaineer Railtours. This company was given the opportunity to create a tourist service over 10 years ago. It has made a tremendous success of it. It has benefited from the opportunity it was given by the federal government, and has been very profitable. It is a very important addition to the tourism industry in British Columbia and across the western part of the country.

That does not mean that there should not be competition particularly in the commuter rail passenger services that Via Rail provides. Via Rail is not in direct competition with a tourist based service like Rocky Mountaineer Railtours, which is a continuing success and will be into the future.