Stephen Owen

[Access to Information, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. We look forward to that information and I thank him.

It is important to understand that the Prime Minister's director of communications, who illegally received the information identifying the reporter, is the very person who decides what reporters get to ask questions of the Prime Minister.

Even more important, did the Prime Minister also illegally receive this information?

[Access to Information, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative minority government believes it is above the law. Members of the Prime Minister's political staff, including his director of communications, have illegally received the name of a reporter who filed a confidential access to information request. This is not only improper, it is against the law.

The Prime Minister has promised to get tough with people who break the law. Will he start with his own staff?

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip is probably right that there would be tremendous political pressure against a crass move that was not in emergency circumstances or in some very important circumstance. However, we have an obligation in the House, to the fullest extent that we can, to simply not rely on political dynamics to ensure that something untoward does not happen. I invite government members on the committee and all members in further debate to think very carefully about this prerogative because it leaves an uncertainty.

Let me mention a type of situation which could occur. There could be a change in leadership of the government party by reason of death or incapacity, or whatever, shortly after an election. There has been a practice in our parliamentary democracy, it is not inviolate but it is quite frequent, that a new leader seeks to get his or her own mandate at a fairly early date. Maybe we can look at this opportunity to break that expectation or trend. To me it has always seemed a bit like putting a presidential aura around a prime minister who is not directly elected, but is only the leader of a party with the most elected members. If a new prime minister used that reason for asking for a dissolution, I would like to see that rejected. Maybe the legislation could make that clear in some way.

All I am suggesting is that we tighten this up to the full extent possible to ensure the certainty that we are seeking.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways of looking at this question. I quite agree that during a minority parliament if a vote were lost by the government in the House, there would be a very rigorous public and political debate over whether that constituted confidence or not. This would happen probably before the vote as well as after the vote, if the government lost.

It will be a political context. The Governor General will of course be thinking very carefully about this legislation, what the spirit of it is, what her constitutional responsibilities are, what historical practice has been and what the public debate and political debate has been. I do not have any doubt about that.

We have another situation and there is an uncertainty there. I think one of the useful things that the committee can do is to look at whether there are some defining points. Are there some, not rigid formula that the courts will interpret and must be followed, objective criteria that can give some direction to the political and public debate and the Governor General's consideration?

An additional problem is not where there is a minority government, but where there is a majority government, as was the case in Germany last year. Despite there being no issue of confidence and the government having a majority, the prime minister still has the prerogative. The Governor General, under this legislation, would still have the prerogative to dissolve parliament and call an election. That is another challenge for members to think through to ensure we get it right so we do not hobble or cement an advantage now, which many people see as being an unfairness.

Let us make sure that the objective that is before us is properly met in the most effective way.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be back in the House of Commons after the summer recess and to see you, Sir, looking so well.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill today. As the official opposition House leader mentioned when the bill was first tabled in the House, the official opposition supports the bill in general but we do have some concerns in regard to ensuring that the objectives of the bill are properly met within the proper constitutional framework of the House of Commons and our relationship with the Crown, and also in regard to taking full advantage of some of the opportunities that the government House leader has mentioned to ensure that the efficiency, the cost containment, the decline in cynicism, and the representativeness of candidates and such, which are potentially the promise of this bill, are actually fulfilled.

Let us start with the first section of the bill, which would amend section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act. It states, as has been noted:

(1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

We have had a question from a colleague of mine and an answer from the government House leader with respect to what defines a vote of confidence and therefore a lack of confidence, a vote of non-confidence, and he has responded very broadly that it is not just money, that it might be war or some other thing that the government thinks is very important. That is the very type of looseness that can create uncertainty and can, I think, create instability in the House, uncertainty in the public mind and a frustration of the objective of the legislation, which is otherwise quite appropriate. We are not voting against the bill, but we will be looking in committee to get some constitutional definition around what we are talking about.

People looked at the election in Germany in 2005. Many people reported at the time that it was their opinion that then Chancellor Schroeder manipulated the defeat of his own government to cause an election at a time that he thought was advantageous, so I think we are going to want to look at what role the courts may well have on this, what role the Governor General has, how much discretion is actually there, and what has happened to that royal prerogative over time, through disuse or whatever. It is an important thing for our constitutional democracy. In committee we will have to get a firm grip on it and in a way which I think does the basic work that has not yet been done to interpret the impact of the bill.

Looking more generally at the bill, I think the government House leader is correct in saying that we have a building practice in this country, an experience, of fixed election dates. Not only has my province of British Columbia had fixed date legislation, but it has had an election with a fixed date. I must agree that this has worked out as well or better than anyone who had some misgivings about it could have thought. It did bring predictability.

It has actually demonstrated to many other provincial jurisdictions in the country that this is something that should be part of their democratic reform package. We have heard that Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec are looking at this as a way to go. It may well be that this is just a trend, that as with medicare in Saskatchewan, it has been tested in the provinces and its time has come federally, but of course we must always look to those examples for their experience and what we might do better with this legislation as it goes forward.

In December 2005, the Institute for Research on Public Policy did an exhaustive study of parliamentary democracies and democracies similar to Canada's and what sort of election timing legislation and rules they followed. It found that only 11 out of the 40 democracies similar to Canada's have unfixed dates such as Canada does.

Globally, the trend is certainly toward that. I think we should be taking it very seriously. Certainly, therefore, we should not put up any blinders to suggest that we have always done it a certain way and therefore we simply cannot change it. Others have changed it and it is working well. There are lessons we can learn from that. That will be very much a part of this debate and the committee work.

Certainly the efficiency argument has some real merit if this is really used responsibly. In the planning of committee work, public policy development, legislative approval and bureaucratic implementation, if we take advantage of this certainty, not to simply become lame ducks during the last year but to in fact plan efficiently right up to the date the election campaign starts, then there is real potential for efficiency to be achieved from that predictability.

We know that certainly in law and legal principles, and in criminal law in particular, certainty is absolutely critical as a basic tenet of the criminal law of Canada. We know that in business certainty and predictability are often even more important than the particular taxation rule or regulatory rule. Business has to know what is coming to properly prepare. I think the work of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada can benefit from that as well if it is properly planned.

The fairness issue is a good one. The government House leader raised it. In our discussions of how we develop public policy, we must always, in the House and, frankly, in government, look to the fairness, not just from our own subjective point of view but also from the view of the public. I think we have had experiences in Canadian parliamentary democracy, if not federally then provincially, in which the public has decided that the early calling of an election is unfair and inappropriate. We saw that in Ontario some 15 years ago, when the government that called for an early race paid for it through the public's feeling that it was unfair.

That transparency, that level playing field, that coming to a place like Ottawa to the House of Commons with a firm mandate and a majority government to work to a certain schedule and to fulfill that obligation to the public, all of that, I think, is something that should be emphasized.

That fairness will help erode cynicism. I think we in this House are all too painfully aware that the public is cynical. We are constantly under pressure, and an appropriate pressure, from the public, our constituents, to deal with the cynicism that perhaps the best interests of individual Canadians are not always looked after in the House. We have to do everything we can to break down that cynicism. If this is properly implemented, I think this can help do that.

Of course, if we increase fairness, transparency and planning and if we reduce cynicism, that should lead to greater voter turnout. That is one of the most important indicia of the health of a our democracy, which slipped a bit in 2004. It went up again in 2006, but we are still far below what I would see as a healthy voter participation in our democratic process. I think that is important.

Of course the date that has been suggested, that of the third Monday in October, helps with voter turnout with respect to the seasons. At that time we do not have a lot of perhaps retired and senior citizens holidaying in the southern United States to avoid the cold weather, and we do not have students out of university or people who are away during the summer and are not available to vote or take part in the whole civic engagement. That could all be very positive.

I understand and appreciate that voting in February or January in Vancouver is no problem at all. In fact, we had a very great time with the weather in the lower mainland during the last election, but I do appreciate that other parts of the country, including Niagara, that wonderful temperate area during certain months of the year, could benefit in voter turnout from not having to face harsh winter weather conditions.

The early fall date I think is an interesting one. Ontario has picked something similar. B.C. went for a late spring date and there is some consideration in British Columbia of moving it to the fall. I think there is some real purpose behind that. For one thing, the lead-up, the period of the campaign, would be at the end of the summer. Rather than suspending the parliamentary session in mid-session, that is helpful. It is also helpful with the predictability of planning courses in high schools and universities around civics for seniors, community groups and new immigrants, courses around electoral responsibility and the democratic process. The predictability in putting those types of civil exercises into a predictable annual rotation is probably helpful with turnout as well.

The question of representativeness of candidates is an important one. We know that we struggle in this country, and certainly in the House, to have the appropriate representation of women, for instance, which is of course far below the pro rata size of the population. I believe it is 21% in the House and I know that all of our parties struggle with it. I think we have to struggle together as a House of Commons and look to the legislation to ensure that as it is finalized and implemented--and it may be amended--it takes advantage of whatever opportunity a fixed date can provide for forward planning, for organizing someone's professional or family life, for fundraising, and for the whole nomination process of candidates to ensure that this increases the representativeness of the House by gender and as well as to properly reflect the indigenous, the multicultural and the linguistic duality and the multiplicity of this country. That could be an important thing.

One of the problems that we all must be aware of and has been spoken of often is the further Americanization of the Canadian political situation. I think what we have to do is look to this legislation to ensure that this does not happen--the fixed date may actually help if we do it properly--and that there is a shorter campaign period.

The government House leader mentioned, and I think correctly, that electoral officials can plan better with a fixed date. A lot of the work they might have to do during an election could actually be done before the campaign starts, so the campaign could be shorter. With appropriate campaign and political financing laws, I think that could be very helpful. It is something we want to pay very careful attention to: ensuring that the campaign period is limited and that the political financing laws are aligned with that to stop the great expense and lame duck or never-ending practice of the American political process.

There is another issue that I think we should look at just briefly and then perhaps in more detail in debate in committee. We should look at how federal election fixed dates, if we are indeed going ahead in that direction, fit in with other levels of government and their electoral dates. There is a possibility there, if we can align through intergovernmental discussion. For instance, Ontario will have municipal elections this fall and then provincial elections in 2007. As well, Lord knows, we are going to have the American presidential election in the fall of 2008, and then, as set out in this legislation, a federal election in the fall of 2009.

Is there some way we can annualize our civics courses, our public education, so that we are both avoiding overlapping elections, which frankly can exhaust the public, and also taking advantage of every year having a swing through, a reminder, a refresher or mock elections and such in our schools, universities, colleges and communities to really heighten people's awareness of the issues and of the importance of their democratic participation?

Finally, I would put the aspect of democratic reform in a broader context. We have political financing reform that was brought in by the former Liberal government. The accountability act takes further steps in political finance legislation. It has not been completed yet but it is certainly in play, and political financing is a big part of the electoral framework.

Another aspect is election timing, and we are addressing that today. Another aspect is the voting procedure and looking at different systems, or combined systems, than simply the first past the post system. We know that many democratic parliaments in the world operate on different voter systems. We know the Law Commission of Canada has come out with a very detailed report recommending a mixed proportional system.

British Columbia had a very engaged citizens' assembly process to look at a potential change. It got almost 68% of the vote on a plebiscite issue, but not the 60% needed. There are numerous jurisdictions across the country, I believe six in all, looking at different voter processes. That is another piece of it.

Finally is the public engagement part of representative democracy, and that is absolutely critical. Democracy is always on a spectrum between participation and direct representativeness. We have to get that balance right, but it is only healthy if our representative democracy is responsive to the participatory engagement of our population. As a fourth level of electoral reform, this is something that, as a House, I hope we will consider very carefully.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has brought a real sense of moderation to many of our discussions in the House and I appreciate his remarks on the accountability act.

Floor crossing is the one area that we have not really talked about tonight and it is something that has affected people across parties, certainly governing parties over the years, and it is something that always creates a discomfort.

We had a chance to deal with this in the accountability act. The Liberal opposition put forward a suggestion on floor crossing. Because it can involve such a range of possibilities, including time from the election to the time when the member changes parties, to a member sitting as an independent, to a member having a serious ideological or principled disagreement with his party or its leader, we put forward a suggestion that would allow each situation to be judged by the constituents who elected that member. It would be a limited recall system where a petition could be called within 30 days and then 60 days to canvas 50% plus 1 of the people who actually voted but not the voter's list because that can change over time.

We thought that was a way that was fair to the MP because the MP could go back directly to his constituents and make a case to those people to whom he or she is most responsible.

I appreciate that the NDP put forward a private member's bill last year but I voted against it. I felt it was too all-encompassing and could not take into account the range of circumstances. I thought that a much more focused way that could put the MP in front of his or her own constituents and make the case and have a limited recall might be a sensible way forward.

That was ruled out of order by the chair of the C-2 committee--

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her participation in the committee and her strong support for our team.

We certainly heard from many witnesses that they were frustrated by the short period of time that they had to participate in the committee's deliberations and give evidence. We heard from some as well who would have liked to return and have been asked to return but who did not have the chance.

When we weigh these things out, we have to be careful as parliamentarians to always do two things: first, ensure that we move things along as quickly as possible, particularly issues that deal with fundamental principles, as this act does; and second, ensure we do not--

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, certainly this is a difficult balance. This is an immensely complicated bill with many clauses affecting many other pieces of legislation.

I must say that many of us had some real misgivings with the speed with which it was travelling through the process and the time that was limited for certain witnesses. I can quote two in particular, but many made similar observations, and without passing judgment on them I think they speak for themselves. I will just quote their observations.

One is Arthur Kroeger who is the dean of the bureaucratic core, having been deputy minister in a number of very senior portfolios over the years. He certainly expressed the opinion that the complexity and length of this bill should be given very careful consideration and that all the time that could possibly be used should be used to avoid any unintended consequences given the bill's complexity.

The other key person who commented on this is Ken Rubin, who is perhaps, outside of information commissioners themselves, one of the most knowledgeable people on freedom of information issues in our country. He felt the same thing, that he did not have enough time. He thought that the access provisions needed much more work and improvement.

They are people who are speaking from an independent point of view. We should all take note of their concerns as we diligently go forward to ensure that this act, if it is not as good as it can possibly be now, becomes so.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

I am delighted to stand today, Mr. Speaker and colleagues from all parties, to address Bill C-2 at third reading.

First of all, as I said in our leading speech when the bill was first debated, we generally support the accountability act. In fact, in most areas of Bill C-2, it adds to and builds on a number of major issues that have been promoted by the Liberal government over the last 10 years. Of course, one of these was the most dramatic change in political financing in Canadian history, which was former Bill C-24 which passed and came into effect over two and a half years ago. Bill C-2 builds on it further and that is a good thing. We have to be careful in that area that we do not go too far and inhibit the free speech of Canadians, but generally that is certainly a continuation of something that the former Liberal government brought into effect.

The bill is also a continuation around the powers of independent officers of Parliament, such as the independent Ethics Commissioner brought in by the previous Liberal government who has served, I might say, with distinction.

The lobbyist registration rules are being tightened up in this bill and that is a good thing. I will speak in a moment of how they could be even better. That is something that progressed steadily over the last 10 years under the previous government. The bill also extends the powers of the Auditor General which I think all in the House believe is a good thing. We are very much in favour of the direction in which this bill is going.

I thank the member for Nepean--Carleton and the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre for their remarks in support of the members of the committee, myself included, but I think it is important for all members of the House to understand something that the hon. member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre stressed. It is that members of the House are honourable, that public servants in Canada are honourable and that we need the requisite support of Canadians in believing that to have our democracy really work in a healthy way and not simply be looked at in a cynical way. I simply quote from Justice Gomery's first report, his fact finding report. He said at page 3:

Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this inquiry free of any blame.

I do not say that to try to avoid the responsibility of the government at the time, of which I was a part, but I say it so that we keep this in balance and in perspective and that we do not sully our own reputations as public servants and politicians from all parties who, in the words of Mr. Justice Gomery, are honest, diligent and effective in their work. That is what we need to stress to Canadians, even while we find wrong, we admit fault and we put in new mechanisms to ensure that it will not happen again.

When we say that on this side of the House we support the general aims of the accountability act, it is a qualified support. We recognize that accountability is a work in progress. It has been going on for a long time. Often we hit bumps in the road. We learn some things; we do things better. I think there are many good steps forward in the bill. There are some things still to be done or things that could be corrected and we will be working to continually improve it, even while we support the bill.

Let me mention Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 6 which were passed this afternoon which relate to the autonomy and independence of the House of Commons and members of Parliament. We received testimony from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel at the Bill C-2 legislative committee that there were a number of difficulties with the way the bill was drafted.

The most serious difficulty was one that was unconstitutional. That was the part of the bill that called for secret votes to approve officers of Parliament. As a committee we took that as being unconstitutional and inappropriate and we agreed to remove that. That was an excellent collaborative response to an extremely important bit of advice from the Law Clerk.

There were other aspects that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel expressed concerns about, not because they are unconstitutional, but because they were against the traditional autonomy and independence of the legislative branch from the judiciary and the executive branch. Of course the three branches of government in our country under our Constitution which adopts the British parliamentary system are immensely important to the strength of our democracy. While the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel said that it was possible for Parliament to counteract that or give away some of that autonomy, he felt it might weaken the strength of Parliament over time with respect to its independence and autonomy.

Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 6 were passed today quite constitutionally, but went against that advice. That is something members of the House on all sides will have to watch very carefully as we go forward to make sure that we are not eroding those essential three autonomous independent pillars of our democracy.

I would also like to comment briefly on the open government act. Over a year ago, a House of Commons committee invited the Information Commissioner to come up with recommendations for reform of the system after 23 years of experience with the Access to Information Act. The reforms are with respect to some of the basic principles of access to information.

One is that public information is owned by the public and should be accessible by the public. Another one is that exemptions carrying on from that should be limited. In the basic principles he brought forward in the open government act, not only should it be accessible and only have a few exemptions, but those exemptions should have to be discretionary and should have to pass an injury test, that even though they may be within the exceptions in the act, they do not cause injury to the person who might be protected, whether it is a private citizen, a commercial entity or another government. Even if there were injury, there would be a public interest override which is immensely important.

Those were in the open government act recommended by the Information Commissioner last fall. They were reviewed, debated and endorsed by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Then the Conservative Party, which was in opposition at the time, put that in black and white in its election platform, that the whole open government act would be included in the accountability act as the first act of a new Parliament if the Conservative Party formed government, but it has not included that. That is work for all of us to do to ensure in the fall when we further consider access to information that those important principles are enhanced.

The third area I would like to talk to briefly is the addition of new agencies of government to provide for greater accountability. I have no doubt these are well meaning but they do have the danger of adding new levels of bureaucracy and process to a system which needs air, needs light and needs to be fair. I think we all agree that the size of government is something we should be reducing and making more effective rather than simply adding to it to deal with another problem. Three of these areas deal with immensely important issues but there are institutions of government that could have taken on those mandates.

I speak first of all of the reprisal tribunal. That is fine but we do have the Canadian Industrial Relations Board which could have been asked to take on that role.

With respect to the nominations committee, there is very good legislation in the bill now which we support, but that could have been done by the Public Service Commission.

With respect to the director of public prosecutions, this country has one of the finest prosecution services federally and provincially than anywhere else in the world. To my knowledge, there has never been a suggestion, certainly in the modern history of Canada, that our federal prosecution service is not acting impartially within that special independent role of the Attorney General. The director of public prosecutions as a new entity is really not necessary. We could have improved the transparency around directions for an Attorney General and Minister of Justice but a new process was not necessary. That was certainly the way we looked at it.

I thank members on all sides of the House for their work at committee. It was a noble purpose, this bill. There were many things that were appropriate to begin with. There were many that could be strengthened and were strengthened by collaboration in committee. There are some aspects that still need to be addressed as this work in progress works to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House for unanimous consent to split my time with my hon. colleague from Mississauga South.