Jim Abbott

[Government Appointments, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary might be interested that all three law firms in question have absolute Liberal pedigrees.

The law firm partner James Hutchison happens to be the president of the revenue minister's Victoria riding association. Another contract was given to David Mulroney who happens to be the vice-president of the minister's Liberal association.

In light of the Liberals' promise to wipe out patronage appointments and bring integrity to government, why has the justice department failed to deliver on this important promise?

[Government Appointments, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in the red book promised to wipe out patronage appointments and bring integrity to government. Word now comes from British Columbia that at least three legal firms with no previous prosecution experience have been awarded standing contracts to act on behalf of the crown in putting criminals behind bars.

Since the government is so fond of citing the merit principle whenever it becomes clear we are really talking about the patronage principle, could the Minister of Justice explain the merit in handing over the responsibility for prosecuting criminals to law firms with absolutely no experience in that field?

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Liberal members decided.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly evident from any survey of any group of people that there is no support for the government's bill among the population at large. Survey after survey comes back stating that 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to bills of this type.

I ask the member who is the chairman of the committee specifically about some things that happened there. Could this be the reason why the government, in an agreement with the two opposition parties, decided to take the bill after first reading directly to committee?

The opposition parties thought there was going to be a fair opportunity to review the bill on a clause by clause basis. Once they got into committee they found that the chairman had decided that debate was going to be restricted to five minutes per clause which is completely out of touch with reality. Is this a fair and open way to study legislation or is it just a way for the government to slide things by so that the 80 per cent of Canadians who are opposed to this bill do not know that the government is sliding this one by them?

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I noted in my colleague's speech that he made the comment that it is impossible to legislate attitude. I found it rather instructive that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was on her feet speaking today she made exactly the same comment: it is impossible to legislate attitude.

I cannot help but wonder why it is that the Liberals have difficulty understanding that they cannot legislate attitude when the parliamentary secretary says it and it is obviously agreed to by my colleague from Fraser Valley West. In fact, they are getting involved in social engineering to try to redress a situation by way of legislation when 80 per cent of the people in the coffee shops across Canada say they do not want any part of it.

The problem I am having is when I raised the question with members opposite, asking them to explain why the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party says that goals are the same thing as quotas, I have not yet had one explanation from the other side as to why there seems to be such a discrepancy in this never-never land that these people in Ottawa are in, bringing forward legislation that 80 per cent of Canadians do not want. They do not seem to understand.

I wonder if my colleague could help me understand why the Liberals in Ottawa seem to be so grossly out of touch with reality and certainly out of touch with the attitude of the majority of Canadians on this issue.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House for my indiscretion.

However, I still find it absolutely astounding that the member has not explained the difference. Now she has added to it, if I understood her explanation, that she or the government will be the judge of who is going to be competent and capable of being able to do this. I do not understand this.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I find the attitude just expressed to be absolutely the most condescending pile of brown smelly stuff. I just find it absolutely astounding.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

She is a Liberal, a provincial Liberal.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

In your case they will make an exception.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

The Liberal members are telling me I am missing something. However, maybe I could inform the parliamentary secretary of something that happened to me as revenue critic.

I was in the Toronto airport going through the customs section being toured around by a black woman from Jamaica. She was telling me how concerned she was that the government seemed to be so set on the idea of creating the problem that she would be in a different category, someone special.

That is the coffee shop common sense of more than 80 per cent of Canadians who are saying the government does not know where it is coming from. The government does not have a clue what is happening as far as the people in Canada are concerned. The people in Canada, including the woman who gave me the tour around the customs section, simply want equal opportunity. They do not want something legislated in which there are to be some kind of numerical goals. She does not want numerical goals.

I report to the parliamentary secretary that this woman said: "I am a capable person. I have my position because I am a capable person, not because I am a woman and not because I am black. I do not want anything to do with numerical quotas or anything else like that".

I do not understand. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can help me and help this wonderful woman who gave me the tour to understand why a numerical goal is not a quota. Explain that, please.