Jim Abbott

[Telefilm Canada, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that we had the hearing for the new commissioner for Telefilm yesterday and it is from that hearing that his question arises. I believe if he were to reflect on the answer of the new commissioner, the new commissioner was not asking for increased funding.

[Half-Masting of Peace Tower Flag, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Motion No. 310 on the topic of half-masting the Canadian flag, a topic that is of great interest and concern to Canadians across the country.

I, too, would like to thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo for providing us with the opportunity to begin open discussion about our flag. It is a topic that I myself have raised at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on a number of occasions and it is a topic deserving of the careful study of the committee.

Since the formal adoption of the Canadian flag on February 15, 1965, it has become an important symbol of our country, uniting all Canadians. It is flown at schools, arenas, hospitals, museums and office buildings in municipalities all across the country. It is flown, displayed or hung in provincial establishments and federal government buildings. It is flown proudly on the top of one of our most significant buildings, other symbols of our values, the Peace Tower on the Parliament Buildings.

It is clear that the symbolism of lowering the flag is immense. It is a graphic visual reminder of loss. It is lowered with a great sense of respect and engenders a feeling of grief. It is an age old signal of a country in mourning.

Given the immense significance, the Government of Canada currently has a policy around when and under what circumstances it will be lowered.

The first policy was introduced in 1966 by the then Department of the Secretary of State of Canada. This early guide, general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in Canada, provided guidelines on virtually every use of the national flag.

This early policy stipulated that the flag on the Peace Tower would be lowered in the following circumstances: first, death of the sovereign or a member of the royal family related to the sovereign by the first degree, that is, a husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, brother or sister; and second, death of the Governor General, a former Governor General, a Lieutenant Governor, a Canadian privy councillor, a senator or member of the House of Commons; and third, on Remembrance Day, November 11.

The 1966 policy also elaborates when the flag would be lowered on federal government buildings, airports and military establishments in the following circumstances: throughout Canada on the death of a sovereign, member of the royal family related in the first degree; the Governor General; a former Governor General; the Prime Minister; a former Prime Minister; or, a federal cabinet minister; throughout a province on the death of a lieutenant governor or provincial premier; within a riding on the death of a member of the House of Commons or a member of the provincial legislature; and, at the place of residence on the death of a senator or a Canadian privy councillor.

The rule also included a provision to lower the flag on federal buildings, subject to special instructions on the death of members of the royal family other than the sovereign or those related in the first degree to the sovereign, a head of a foreign state or some other person whom it is desired to honour.

As we can see there was no reference in those 1966 guidelines specifically for military, police or others who serve their country or community. There was no provision for designated days of national mourning other than Remembrance Day. There was a lack of clarity for many situations.

Therefore, since 1966, changes were made to the policy in an ad hoc manner until 2002-03 when a comprehensive review of the policy was conducted to modernize it so it would provide clear guidelines for different kinds of situations.

It was evident that Canadians wanted to see themselves reflected in this policy. It is important to mark the death of a leader but it is equally important to mark the death of ordinary citizens who take extraordinary risks or lose their lives as a result, or those who are lost in natural disasters or through terrible acts of violence. It became apparent that the half-masting policy needed to respond to these types of situation.

It was clear that Canadians wanted some sort of national commemoration where we could, as citizens, mourn together as we do for November 11. Therefore, over time, additional days of national mourning were added to the half-masting rules. These include April 28, Workers' Mounting Day, legislated in 1990. On this day the flag is half-masted on both the Peace Tower and on government buildings within Canada. This day commemorates workers who have been injured, killed or suffered illness as a result of occupational accidents and hazards.

December 6, National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women, was adopted by Parliament in 1991. The flag is half-masted on the Peace Tower and on government buildings within Canada. This day coincides with the sad anniversary of the death of 14 young women who were tragically killed December 6, 1989 at École Polytechnique in Montreal because of their gender.

The last Sunday in September is Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day adopted in 1998. The flag is half-masted on the Peace Tower, on government buildings and on establishments within Canada. This is a special day for Canadian police, corrections officers and peace officers that gives Canadians an opportunity to formerly express appreciation for the dedication of police and peace officers who make the ultimate tragic sacrifice to keep our communities safe.

April 9 is Vimy Ridge Day. The flag is half-masted on the Peace Tower. In addition to the above days, there is an annual memorial service on Parliament Hill in honour of deceased parliamentarians where the flag on the Peace Tower is lowered.

In November 2005, the Department of National Defence developed an internal protocol for half-masting in the event of military deaths. This new internal protocol functions within the guidelines of the government's broader policy on half-masting outlined in section II, discretionary provisions, paragraph 14, employees of the federal government. This allows an individual federal department to make a decision about half-masting for an employee who has died in the line of duty or by reason of the position her or she occupied within the federal department, agency or crown corporation.

In the event of the death of a member of the Canadian Forces who is deployed on operations to a special duty area, National Defence internal protocol, which falls under section 14, stipulates that flags will be half-masted as follows:

All flags within the task force--

--for example, theatre of operation, in the case of Afghanistan--

--to which a member is assigned at the time of death shall be half-masted from the day of death until sunset the day of the funeral;

All flags at the home base/station of the member shall be half-masted from the day of death until sunset the day of the funeral;

All flags within the environment (sea, land, and air) to which the member was assigned shall be half-masted from sunrise to sunset on the day of the funeral. and;

All flags at National Defence Headquarters shall be half-masted from the day of death until sunset the day of the funeral.

It is clear that this policy, so important to Canadians, will continue to evolve as the needs of Canadians evolve over time.

Personally, on numerous occasions I have raised this very issue with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as one deserving of careful, non-partisan study.

This well-intentioned motion is timely in the sense that it would get the attention it deserves in the context of a committee study. However, there is no formal provision for a motion passed in the House to go to committee.

I have spoken to other members of the standing committee who have expressed interest in having the contents of the motion referred. However, I do respect the sanctity of private members' business and recognize that it is up to the member to withdraw the motion and refer the contents to committee.

I discussed this option with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo and hope that he will choose to withdraw the motion and refer the content of the motion to the standing committee for a more fulsome discussion so that we can move from debate to real action.

The government wants to get this right and we are prepared to move forward. We simply need the member to withdraw the motion, refer the contents to the standing committee and the standing committee will take over from there. We hope he does that.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the motivation for this proposed legislation is highly laudable. My hon. colleague's intentions in pursuing this project so diligently are commendable.

What is also clear given all we know about the likelihood of labelling having the desired outcomes is that Bill C-251 will not achieve its intended results.

The evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Health in 2005, on a nearly identical bill, Bill C-206, is unequivocal in concluding that in the absence of a wide range of other strategies to encourage Canadians to engage in safer alcohol use, warning labels alone will not result in an overall reduction in hazardous alcohol consumption or specific risk behaviours, such as drinking and driving or preventing the dangers of FASD.

Today, I want to speak about the unintended consequences which will likely result from mandatory labelling. As has previously been pointed out in interventions before the committee, an organization in Quebec, Éduc'alcool, came to the following conclusion when it looked into the pros and cons of alcohol warning labels:

Reviews and primary studies concerning the impacts of the U.S. alcohol warning label experience, whether written by independent researchers or those employed by the alcohol industry, agree fairly closely that impacts on drinking behaviour are either non-existent or minimal.

What is particularly worrisome is that the legislation proposed might not just fail to accomplish its objectives, but it could actually produce unanticipated and unwelcome consequences that could inflict another form of harm on some of our constituents.

Another huge concern is that the bill, if passed as it currently reads, would mean that all alcohol beverages currently on the market would be in violation of the new law once the bill would be enacted. The legislation would not allow companies adequate time to redesign the labels and implement the labelling requirements. The business community also stressed that Bill C-251 is inflexible in allowing different coming into force dates for small and large businesses. This is a major concern in my constituency as it could potentially cause unnecessary complications for my constituents.

What is vexatious is that interveners speaking on behalf of these regions and industries at the health committee in 2005 acknowledged that such legislation is well intended but misdirected. They worried that it could be detrimental to the economic well-being of people living in areas like mine.

Other points frequently raised are the implementation costs of the bill and its effectiveness. The costs associated with mandatory labelling would be significant, likely in the millions to make, pass and enforce regulations. It is valid to argue that this money could be better spent elsewhere.

The real concern is that the funds badly spent on warning labels might prevent the implementation of a more comprehensive strategy in the future. This House has been told over and over again by the provinces, the food and beverage service industry, as well as groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving that a comprehensive strategy is essential to have a meaningful impact on the problem of alcohol abuse.

The majority of witnesses who have previously appeared before the standing committee have said that many of the established targeted programs currently in place have a much better chance of success than warning labels. There were strong arguments against diverting funds from these proven programs to underwrite the costs of warning labels which have not been proven to have a measurable effect on drinking patterns.

There is also the issue of potential trade and charter challenges which could further impose costs on the government. A representative from the Department of Justice has indicated that a violation of freedom of expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have to be justified under section 1 of the charter, and justification requires evidence that labels work. That evidence is lacking.

Something else to consider is that Canada must ensure it respects its international trade obligations in imposing technical regulations, including labelling requirements, on imported products. These would apply to any regulations to implement the legislation. No such consideration has been made in the creation of this bill as it currently stands.

Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. There is no doubt about the dangers of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, and drinking and driving, nor does anyone dispute the detrimental impacts alcohol can have on individuals and their families. However, all of these are problems of abuse or improper use, and based on the evidence presented by an array of expert witnesses, those behaviours are not likely to be changed because of alcohol warning labels.

Furthermore, in its September 2006 report, “Even One is too Many: A Call for a Comprehensive Action Plan for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder”, the Standing Committee on Health did not call for the implementation of warning labels on alcoholic beverage products.

There can be no debate that the Government of Canada takes this problem very seriously with its annual investment of some $100 million in a vast array of prevention, education and treatment programs. There is no question that the health minister is determined to do even more.

The point I am making is that labels cannot solve every behavioural and health problem. It takes a complete, comprehensive plan, properly resourced, put into action.

I can also assure the House that I am not implying that the underlying goals of Bill C-251 lack merit. I have nothing but praise and respect for my hon. colleague's efforts to draw national attention to the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption. I am simply pointing out that this legislation does not provide the airtight arguments needed for its adoption and that it could unintentionally produce unexpected and undesirable results.

For all these reasons, I am unable to support this bill.

[Art and Art Exhibits, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member refuses to acknowledge the fact that our government has invested a total of over $267 million in museums. We firmly believe that museums have an essential role to play.

I do not understand what his problem is. He knows full well that the members of our committee and I work very diligently and closely with the Museums Association.

[Art and Art Exhibits, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the government took the action that it took as a result of some conflict with respect to labour issues. The government is continuing to work on this issue.

[Business of Supply, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly to speak of P3s because the NDP member just spoke of them.

I had a P3 in my constituency. It was a $140 million highway project in the Kicking Horse Canyon. It obviously was a gigantic project. That highway project came in completely on budget and amazingly came in 19 months early. Cars and trucks are safely travelling that section of the Trans-Canada Highway as a direct result of the arrangements that were made under a P3 program.

P3 is not a panacea; it does not answer all of the questions. It can be used as leverage where there are specific projects so that we can get as much as 15 or 20 years ahead on projects with the amount of capital that we presently have.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would like to comment on that.

[Norval Morrisseau, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned of the death of the great Anishinabe painter, Norval Morrisseau.

Known as Copper Thunderbird, Mr. Morrisseau was the first artist to depict the rich legends and history of the Ojibwa, and he was an inspiration to several generations of aboriginal artists.

Appointed to the Order of Canada in 1978 in recognition of his distinctive body of work, Mr. Morrisseau is the only first nations artist to have a major solo exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada.

The government joins with people around the world in extending deepest sympathy to the friends and family of Norval Morrisseau.

[Canadian Heritage, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability within federal institutions. There was a difficulty in that the use of contractors at the exhibit, transportation services, contravened Revenue Canada rules regarding employer-employee relationships. We have put in place a relationship with private corporations that can do exactly the same thing and perform exactly the same service.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member just made my point, the point being that he sees any action on tackling violent crime as silly, wasteful and frivolous. When he spoke earlier, he minimized the whole issue of crime and violence against individuals, and even went so far as to say too bad, so sad. That is his quote. I find that really deeply regrettable. I do not understand that at all.

He knows full well, or at least should know, that under the Broadcasting Act the governor in council--in other words, the cabinet and the minister--is not able to issue a directive amending the interpretation of the policy in the first place. This motion is totally useless. This motion is totally vacuous.

This motion has nothing to do with anything except stopping the debate on tackling violent crime. Because if a directive can never be laid by the cabinet before the House for the heritage committee's consideration, I respectfully submit that we are just on a wild goose chase in debating this motion. This is an abject failure, with the opposition deciding it is going to try to obfuscate and delay debate on tackling violent crime. If those members cannot do it one way, they will do it another.

I have a particular difficulty with this, in that it seems to me I recall that the member stood and voted last night in favour of the tackling violent crime act, yet he stands up today and tries to delay for absolutely no reason. This motion has no value. It is vacuous and useless. Other than the member, the Bloc and the Liberals, why are we wasting our time trying to stop debate on tackling violent crime?

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was rather telling of that member when she was on her feet a couple of minutes ago, on a slightly different topic but nonetheless related, and said that she and the Bloc Québécois did not have the same way of looking at the world. Those words were singularly prophetic of the fact that those members are debating something that does not require debate. The motion is totally ultra vires. The motion is nothing that the House can actually seize upon and do anything about.

What this debate is about is the Bloc Québécois attempting to shut down the debate on Bill C-2 on tackling violent crime. Those members went through the motions of voting in favour of it. Why are they trying to stop the tackling violent crime debate?