Laurie Hawn

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2014]

I have to honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not recall where that came from. I do not have the report in front of me. I have not reread it in the last couple of days. There was a ton of information gleaned from various witnesses. There was a lot of information from the government side. There was a lot of information from bar associations and so on. The report compiled all of that information and sifted it into recommendations, which were intended to be focused and not so much broad brush and throwing the baby out with the bath water. It was intended to be focused. It was to take something that people generally agreed was working well and make it better. It focused on some things that we can make better.

Do we get it right all the time? Clearly not, and I will admit that as the government. From the opposition's point of view, we never get it right, and I accept that too. We are working in the right direction, and we are going to continue to do that.

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been called a lot of things, but doctor is not one of them. That is okay. I will accept that, if I would just be given a raise.

I understand why the opposition would object. That is what the opposition does, and I respect that. I sat through most of the hearings. I do not think I was in the committee for the whole time, but I was there for a good part of it. There was vigorous debate and vigorous disagreement, as there always is, especially when it comes to an area like ethics and accountability, because people have different viewpoints about what should be open, what should not be open, and what kind of limits should be put on this or that, and those are all fair points.

I will simply point to a couple of things I mentioned in my remarks. We have streamlined the process by putting it online. We have made it a lot easier for people to access it. The President of the Treasury Board has the expenditures database, which is open. All the information is there. It is verified. It is about how money is spent, where it is spent, and so on. It is there for anyone to review.

In terms of the amount of information, there were six million pages this year. Three million pages on actual government records have been opened up just this year.

There is a lot of work to be done. It is going to be one of those things, like a lot of things that government does, that is going to be an ongoing challenge. We are always going to be looking to improve it.

There is a statutory review every five years or so. There will be another one in five years, and between now and then, I know there will be a lot of debate, but government is trying to get it right. Did we get it right according to the opposition? Clearly not. That is the nature of opposition, but we are working toward it, and we are getting there.

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to stand in this place to speak to the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the statutory review of the Conflict of Interest Act.

At the outset, I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a review of this important piece of legislation. I sat on the committee for most of that.

The government welcomes and supports the 16 recommendations outlined in the committee's report. The committee's recommendations were wide-ranging, and call on government to amend the Conflict of Interest Act and any other necessary acts of Parliament in a variety of ways.

The committee recommended tightening up the definition of public office holder to ensure that all appropriate people are covered, and to align the definition of reporting public office holder with that under the Lobbying Act.

The recommendations take action to prevent vague and arbitrary rulings, to better define what is meant by preferential treatment, and to clarify conflict of interest in the context of expected duties of public office holders. There needs to be a relationship.

Measures would also give the commissioner the clear authority to permit certain activities by public office holders, such as participating in or volunteering for charitable organizations and events.

The committee calls on the government to make amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act in order to enhance fairness and protect the rights of those public office holders who may be the subject of a request before the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. For instance, it includes that the examination of a complaint remain private until a formal report is made public by the commissioner; that the complaint filing and examination process be standardized; that a section be added to the Conflict of Interest Act that specifies the rights of the individual public office holder who is subject to a request; and that the act be amended so that any order or decision of the commissioner is subject to judicial review where there is an error in law.

We live in a world where some people seem motivated to make requests that could only be called frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith. It is recommended that where the commissioner determines that such a request has been made, the commissioner be obligated to publicly disclose the identity of the member of the Senate or House of Commons who made the request. One should not be able to hide behind anonymous and frivolous requests.

It is also recommended that complaints filed by members or senators which the commissioner does not see fit to investigate be publicly disclosed, along with the complainant's name.

Finally, a number of recommendations suggest that the government take action to ensure there is more consistency between the Conflict of Interest Act, and other acts of Parliament, conflict of interest codes, and codes of ethics. It only makes sense to standardize some of those measures.

In carrying out its study, the committee heard testimony from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, academics, subject matter experts, and other interested stakeholders. The committee is to be commended for hearing from a diverse group of witnesses and for considering a variety of perspectives.

It is clear that government and the committee both agree that the Conflict of Interest Act plays a vital role in ensuring Canadians that their elected representatives and public office holders make decisions in the public interest, without any consideration of personal gain. In fact, this principle is so important that it is incumbent on governments, at all levels, to take necessary measures to achieve this objective. That is exactly what our government has been doing by giving Canadians the information they need to judge for themselves.

We have all heard the saying that information is power. By making information accessible, we increase transparency and empower Canadians to hold their government to account. In fact, Canada is a leader in providing accessible information to citizens.

We were one of the first countries to enact access to information legislation almost three decades ago. That is why since coming to office, our government has been working hard to throw open the doors and windows of government and to make information available, not only to parliamentarians but to all Canadians.

For example, in 2006, the government introduced the most extensive amendments to the Access to Information Act since that act came into force in 1983. Most importantly, we broadened the reach of the Access to Information Act to more public institutions. Effective April 1, 2007, the Canadian Wheat Board, five foundations, and five agents of Parliament came under the act's provisions. It was about time.

All told, the Federal Accountability Act added 69 additional public institutions to the list of those covered by the legislation.

As a result, there are now some 250 public organizations that are subject to the access to information law. The services that these institutions provide are wide-ranging and far-reaching and involve many activities and services that are important to Canadians.

Ensuring greater transparency and accountability goes beyond just expanding the coverage of the act to more institutions.

We have also been working hard to improve the flow of information through the access to information system. For example, in April 2013 we introduced a pilot project to receive access to information requests and payments online from three participating departments, a number that has since grown to 21, which represent 80% of all ATIP requests.

The project provides better service to Canadians by making the process of requesting government records simpler and more convenient. Instead of printing, scanning, and mailing forms to the participating departments, individuals can now simply submit their requests online. Requesters can also securely pay the application fee for their access to information and privacy requests online using a credit card, further simplifying the process.

We also made it a requirement for all departments and agencies that are subject to the Access to Information Act to post summaries of their completed access to information requests. Each summary includes a request number, a summary of the completed request, and the number of pages disclosed, and I am pleased to say that the departments, agencies, and crown corporations are complying with this new requirement. These summaries can now be searched online from a single location: data.gc.ca.

Over 100 organizations are already posting summaries of completed access to information requests, and a full list of these organizations is also available at data.gc.ca. Indeed, this year we provided Canadians with more access to government information, over six million pages, than ever before.

Our efforts do not end there. We are also opening the records of the Government of Canada. We have taken measures to post online three million pages of archived government records that were previously restricted. Our objective is to put more and more information about government activities into the hands of the public and parliamentarians, who can use it to hold the government to account.

I am proud to say that our government is meeting that objective. For example, last year the President of the Treasury Board unveiled the expenditure database, a new searchable online database that, for the first time ever, consolidates all information on government spending in one place. We are talking about everything from spending on government programs to operational spending on things like personnel and equipment.

What this means for Canadians is that they now have a more complete picture of how taxpayer money is spent, and we as parliamentarians are now better equipped to do our jobs, which is to analyze, assess, and consider government expenditures. We all know how difficult and time-consuming it can be to go through numerous complex financial documents to try to get a whole-of-government picture of what is being spent and where. Now, with a few simple clicks, users can find out in one place what every department and agency is spending on items such as transfer payments to provinces.

Clearly, our government has taken historic action to promote accountability in government and to ensure that the powers entrusted in all of us by our citizens are being exercised in the public interest.

We welcome and support the 16 recommendations outlined in the committee's report to further strengthen the Conflict of Interest Act. The committee's work is vital to ensuring that the act is providing the clarity, fairness, and accountability Canadians rightly seek, and its members are to be commended for their efforts.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments here and in the lobby. At the risk of complimenting the Liberals, I would point out that our two parties are the only ones that have actually been forced to face the realities in the world and actually do something about it in terms of Canada.

I would challenge my colleague a little on his statement that they were not allowed to debate, and so on. They chose all day to debate the minimum wage in Canada instead of taking their opposition day and debating the very thing they said they wanted to debate. Why did we not do this before? We would have had a vote.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my colleague said. The fact is that this is what the 30 days is about. It is about going over there to assess, to advise the Iraqis, to give them assistance and to hopefully point them in a long-term productive direction.

We are not there by ourselves. We are only sending 69 for a month, but there are a lot of other countries involved. As I said earlier, we do not get the only vote here. ISIS gets to vote. For sure they want humanitarian assistance. When the Yazidis came down from the mountain, they were not looking for tents; they were looking for rescue.

The world collectively has to provide a robust response to ISIS. The role Canada is playing now is the one we have set out to play, and the 30 days will determine what may or may not come next.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a simple question and I have a simple answer. They would go to jail and would stay there for the rest of their lives.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what General Dempsey does in the United States is up to General Dempsey. What President Obama does with the American forces is up to President Obama.

The simple fact is that we have some very capable members of the Canadian Forces, as the member rightly acknowledged. As Dante said, I believe we have an obligation to act in a moment of moral crisis.

The other point I mentioned earlier in a question to another colleague is that we are not the only ones who have a vote in this. ISIS has a big vote, just as the Taliban had a big vote in Afghanistan.

The member comments that we should have had a vote here. The opposition had all day to do an opposition day motion and have a vote. Therefore, the member should not whine to me tonight that we did not have a vote when they had all day to get that done.

With respect to his question about mission creep or whatever, we are there for a purpose with a specific number of people for a specific length of time. What happens after that, I wish I knew. The simple fact is that we do not control these things. We do not control world events. We react to them. We react to them in the interests of Canada, in the interests of our allies and in the interests of common sense and common decency.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to contribute to this important debate, even at the risk of disappointing my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre.

As we heard today, and during last week's meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, in addition to pledging $28 million in humanitarian aid and $15 million in security aid to Iraq since the beginning of 2014, and delivering critical military supplies donated by our allies to the Iraqi security forces, Canada has also initiated deployment of several dozen military advisers, 69 to be exact. These military advisers will be working alongside the U.S. military to provide strategic and tactical advice to Iraqi security forces as they battle the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

I want to quote from a Globe and Mail article by an expert in these matters, Colonel (Retired) George Petrolekas. He said:

[The Islamic State] is the most savage strain of jihadism yet seen, publically reveling in its brutality and unapologetically killing anyone in its path. The danger of [the Islamic State] is that it is on the cusp of an inflection point, where a transition occurs from what we would call insurgent or terrorist activity to the trappings of a conventional force and state power with accompanying tactics which seek ground to conquer and people to govern.At present, [the Islamic State] provides its own brutal form of governance in many cities it controls; it acts as a state, it moves as an army and has state revenues. The killing of hostages, dressed in orange prison garb is meant to convey something beyond what terror killings in the past have done—it does not seek to destabilize a state, it seeks to be a state.If fully realized, [the Islamic State] will never simply be contained. If not destroyed, [the Islamic State] has the potential to dislocate an already volatile region, eventually embroiling Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and the wider Middle East—redrawing borders in its wake.

I agree with Colonel Petrolekas.

Dante said that the darkest recesses of hell are reserved for those who try and remain neutral in a time of moral crisis. I suggest we are there, at a time of moral crisis.

I would like to take a few minutes to explore the unique skill set and experience that Canada's Armed Forces bring to the table in this difficult situation. In all of our military collaboration abroad Canada always strives to remain responsive to the needs of our partner nations on the ground. As we know, these can evolve rapidly. With the rise of new technologies, socio-economic realities and geopolitical trends, the threats we face have diversified and now involve cross-cutting issues such as transnational organized crime and terrorism.

To respond to these emerging threats, Canada draws on the wide variety of skills and resources found across the Canadian Armed Forces, offering tailored, targeted training, capacity building and mentorship in areas of particular need. One of these areas is special operations, and specifically, counter terrorism.

Beginning in 2008, Canada's Special Operations Forces Command, CANSOFCOM, expanded its international training and has now instructed over 1,300 personnel from Jamaica, Niger, Kenya, Mali and Afghanistan on different aspects of counter terrorism operations. These aspects range from intelligence, to planning, staff training, command, communications, battle skills and medical support.

Much of this collaboration has been conducted through the counter terrorism capacity building program, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. It is a whole-of-government initiative established in response to the UN Security Council's call for states to support each other in the fight against terrorism by providing training, funding, equipment and legal assistance.

Our special forces operators have shown just how much they bring to this interdepartmental and international counter terrorism effort. These soldiers are highly educated and professional. They possess incredible technical skills and they have been battle-tested in some of the most austere, dangerous environments in the world, including Afghanistan, where they worked closely with their U.S. counterparts to fight insurgents and protect allied forces during Operation Enduring Freedom. Then they went on to help train and mentor the Afghan National Army special forces.

However, their real value comes from their adaptability and responsiveness. These women and men know their basics inside out. Trained and equipped to operate in small teams, without large logistical chains, and to respond quickly to evolving needs, they are ideally suited to go into even the most unfamiliar and unstable areas and apply those basics to get the job done, and fast.

The high level of expertise, readiness and maturity our special operations forces have attained through their own work and training give them the very technical and diplomatic skills they need to support, advise and instruct developing militaries throughout the world. Their efforts have already paid off. In 2009, for example, a Jamaican counter terrorism unit, trained by Canada's Special Operations Regiment, successfully ended the hijacking of an aircraft with almost 200 Canadian passengers on board, overpowering the gunman without any shots fired.

Canada is a world leader when it comes to the provision of military training, capacity building and mentorship outside the NATO community, not only in the area of counterterrorism but right across the board. For 50 years, our military training and co-operation program, the MTCP, has helped deliver training to thousands of candidates from non-NATO countries. Its core programming, offered in Canada and abroad, includes language training, peace support and professional development and staff courses in a wide range of areas from communications to leadership, ethics and battle procedures. Its classes are geared toward the future leaders of tomorrow's armed forces, and its funding covers all regions of the world, including about 22% that goes to the Middle East and Africa. Last year alone, more than 1,400 candidates from 62 member nations received instruction through this program.

As Canadian co-chair of the Canada–U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defence, I am very familiar with the excellent work in capability development that Canada has contributed to our smaller allies around the world. In addition to the MTCP, different organizations within DND and the Canadian Armed Forces occasionally conduct international training and capacity building at the request of partner nations and within their own areas of expertise, such as countering improvised explosive devices or maritime navigation.

Canada's international military-to-military training, capacity building and mentorship serve three broad goals, goals that are intimately connected to National Defence's mandate to protect Canada and Canadians while contributing to global peace and security.

First, our training co-operation generates enhanced interoperability and capability in partner countries. For example, our peace support training has increased the number of qualified troops available for deployment with the UN and other multilateral organizations.

Second, working closely with members of foreign militaries also helps to expand and solidify Canada's bilateral defence relationships by increasing mutual understanding and good will and laying the foundation for further collaboration. In fact, countries that have participated in Canada's MTCP have been shown to be more likely to co-operate with and offer the Canadian Armed Forces access to their countries and their forces. This has been evidenced by our successful co-operation with countries in the Caribbean in the areas of transnational crime and drug interdiction.

Finally, our international capacity building promotes Canada's democratic values such as rule of law, protection of human rights and civilian oversight of the military in areas of the world where such principles may still be under threat.

Despite the clear success of our international training and capacity building to date, the question continues to be raised as to what relevant experience Canada can bring to this particular part of the world and this particular armed struggle. The Canadian Armed Forces have significant experience in hostile regions where armed insurgency is rife. Afghanistan of course provides a telling example. For more than 12 years, 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members worked with international partners to create the conditions for peace and security in that country by rooting out insurgents and training the Afghan National Security Forces. I had the privilege of spending some time with our forces in Afghanistan, including our special ops forces on several occasions. Their professionalism was manifest, and I was always impressed with their commitment to their mission on behalf of Canadians. I was especially impressed with the largely unsung and extremely difficult work of our special forces and left with the thought that I am very glad that they are on our side.

However, our men and women in uniform have also participated in stabilization, observer and capacity-building missions in Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, the Golan Heights and other parts of the Maghreb and Middle East. They have taken part in multinational operations to counter illicit trafficking and terrorism in the Mediterranean and Arabian seas, while helping to protect civilians in Libya during the recent upheaval there. Across the Middle East and North Africa, the Canadian Armed Forces have worked closely with allies and partners in international coalitions like the one currently supporting Iraqi forces as they battle ISIS, coalitions that demand a high degree of interoperability and collaboration, both between militaries and between military and civilian organizations. This experience will allow our military advisers to successfully mentor Iraqi security forces, which in certain cases are unprepared for full-scale modern warfare and are unused to collaborating with conventional forces.

Canadians should have no doubt that our military personnel on deployment in Iraq have a huge amount to offer. They will be able to make a positive contribution, and their deployment represents an immediate and significant step this government is taking to turn back ISIS's devastating advance through which thousands of innocent victims have already been killed and millions displaced. Their important work will help counter the threat this expansionist terror group poses to regional and global security, and will ensure the security of Canada and all Canadians.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks, and at one point he said our roles define our foreign policy. I would suggest my personal point of view that a lot of our roles have been more about going along to get along than actually taking a principled approach on certain issues.

Dante said that the darkest recesses of hell are reserved for those who try to remain neutral at a time of moral crisis. I have two questions. The first one is whether my colleague thinks we are at a time of moral crisis, and second, rather than our roles defining our foreign policy, does he not think that maybe our Canadian values should define our foreign policy and, by extension, the roles we play in any particular situation?

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we were talking about tonight is the unpredictability of situations like this, and that is a given. We go somewhere with the intent to accomplish certain things at a certain time, but of course somebody else has a vote in that: the folks on the other side, whether it was the Taliban in Afghanistan or whether it is ISIS in this particular situation.

Does my colleague have an assessment, her assessment, of the ultimate intent of ISIS, of where they think they want to go? Does she have an assessment of that?