It is this member's opinion that we have clear legislation that imposes duties on people to announce their conflicts of interest when entering into a race for elected office.

Oilers Fans inidcated he had a position in the Alberta government, and therefore was legally entitled to run in Canada.

I therefore ask, what lawful authority did Cabinet have to demand that OF resign his Alberta position if elected in Canada?

Bweezy, as you were in cabinet at the time, I'm sure you clearly remember the reasons why we asked the same things of OF, a few weeks ago, in respect to his DMoD position. (He subsequently resigned that position).

The MRA, as admin on these forums, he would have access to the CIA, something that you yourself were not a fan of. (I can quote you on it, from the Behind Closed Doors forum, if you don't mind).

There was, and still is, a clear problem in having someone in our government, or CIA, who is the MoD in a region that we are in conflict with. We made some requests, as to assure that OF would remain loyal to this region, were there to be a conflict. And OF chose to not fufill those requests, and dropped out of the race.

I would direct the Honourable member's attention to paragraph 1 of the law to which he refers. To quote: "Such disclosure shall be made in the forum entitled “Conflict Disclosure" found in the Minister of the Region’s forum." Oilers Fans did not do this. As such, paragraph 5 of that legislation provides the lawful authority to bar his candidacy.

The Honourable Member may recall making the same argument in Cabinet, on May 10 (as reported in the Cabinet Report of May 19). Cabinet -- in this instance as in that one -- chose to offer Oilers Fans another alternative, which he in turn chose not to pursue.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not address the question of eligibility for office. As such, Article II, Paragraph 4 grants Cabinet the authority to pass legislation on the subject.

I stand behind my honourable colleagues responses.

And, if I may add - good responses they were, too!

Given that OF has now disclosed his conflict, does Cabinet have any intention to plug the loophole to give it the authority ask certain persons to give up their out of Canada governmental positions in certain circumstances where there is a national security issue?

While DK is correct, Canada may legislate on an issue, there is no legislation currently in place empowering cabinet to prevent OF from running as of this moment.

(DH btw) What I find confusing here is that, when an identical request was made of OF in respect to his position of DMoD, you were a proponent of it, as it was not in our best interests to allow him to continue in that position, and that was not dubbed "illegal" by you or anyone else. What's different in this case?

Yes, absolutely. The issue is being discussed at the moment.

I again refer the Honourable Member to paragraph 5 of the relevant legislation. The period of sanction is to be no less than sixty days. So the existing legislation does indeed prevent OF from running as of this moment. The Honourable Member would be correct to say that existing legislation may not empower Cabinet to prevent OF from running in the next election.

Personally, I regret the situation, as I believe that OF would act in good faith if he were a government member, and I would have preferred to run against him than to be acclaimed. However, I believe that Cabinet has acted lawfully in this matter.

With respect, I find your version of the facts to be incorrect. Not once did I see Cabinet mention that OF was suspended for 60 days. If that were true, I think it would have appeared in the Cabinet Report.

With respect to the Prime Minister's question, whether i objected to the previous actions of this government or not has no bearing on whether or not this Cabinet has been acting beyond its legal authority in *this* circumstance.

The fact of the matter is that a gaping loop hole has been exposed by yours truly, and instead of justifying it by saying "we did it before and no one said anything", I'd suggest that the Prime Minister and her cabinet stop dredging up the past abuses of her administration and address the issue at hand. Whether Cabinet likes it or not, there is a very clear deficiency in the legislation, and I believe the people of this Region would like to see our Cabinet do something about it.

And we are. As I mentioned above, we are discussing the problem in cabinet right now, and are looking to clean up this loophole. Thank you for pointing it out.

I'd also like to go on the record (as I know I've sounded harsh), that the Canadian Sovereignty Party understands and agrees with the administration's long standing commitment to National Security, and do not object in principle to the measures taken.

The only objection we have is on a legal one, in order to ensure that the government is properly empowered to take the necessary actions to preserve National Interests.

With all due respect to the Honourable Member, the legislation places no obligation on Cabinet. The obligation is on the part of the member or candidate. Given that the candidate voluntarily withdrew, no formal charges or further action on Cabinet's part was deemed necessary. The deadline for declaration has passed, and OF will not appear on the ballot.

As the Honourable Member suggests, no formal suspension has been invoked. To this point, none has been necessary. But, it would have been lawful to invoke it. I apologize if my previous remark suggested otherwise.

As a point of clarification, I would inform the House that the Member's own motion of May 10 to formally suspend OF for sixty days has not in fact been voted on. This motion could have been voted on at any time, though it will now die on the Order Paper, with the election beginning tomorrow.

Cabinet appreciates the Member's intent to expose a potential loophole in the legislation. As the Prime Ministress has stated, discussions of possible remedies are underway. But, I reject the suggestion that Cabinet acted outside its legal authority, except insofar as it did not prosecute the case to the full extent of the law.

With all due respect, that is, in my opinion, a misleading interpretation of events. A motion to suspend was put forth, but that motion was either expressly or impliedly rejected by the rest of Cabinet, as an alternative course of action was agreed upon. To state that Cabinet was free to still vote on the said month old motion is misleading to the people of Canada, and I'd suggest that the Sitting Minister of Regional Affairs take greater care when making such statements.

Secondly, to do so would be unfair to Oilers Fans, who was led by Cabinet to believe, through its actions, that he was not subject to a sixty day suspension as a result of the events of early May, 2004. Our citizens should not have the Sword of Damacles forever hanging over their heads.

The Canadian Sovereignty Party opposes this heavy handed and questionable approach.

I call on the Prime Minister to step forward and confirm whether she supports her Minister's interpretation of the situation.

I will have to agree with bweezy here, the motion to suspend Oilers Fans, was impliedly dismissed.