Jim Abbott

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member may know, the Senate has looked at this issue and I was involved in a review of this issue as part of the status of broadcasting in Canada. It is a small part but, nonetheless, a part of the current ongoing CBC mandate review. He may have questions about how the CRTC has chosen to go about doing its mandate, which are all very interesting things.

I mean no disrespect to my friend but we should look at what this debate right now is about. This debate is about the fact that the Bloc Québécois and, I would rather suspect, the NDP are somewhat soft on attacking violent crime.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when it comes time for the Liberals to stand and either debate or not debate. My recommendation would be to let their slot go by and see what happens with the NDP and the Bloc because that is really what all of this is about. It is simply to delay tackling violent crime on the part of the opposition to this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act, as approved by Parliament, sets out the broadcasting policy for Canada. The CRTC's responsibility is to regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system, with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy for Canada as set out in the act.

The CRTC cannot change the act and the government has no intention of providing the CRTC with that power. The CRTC is a regulatory body that operates independently of the government. The member of the committee from the Bloc Québécois is fully aware of that, which is why it is so deeply regrettable that the Bloc members and apparently the NDP members, although we will see what they do with their speeches, but they seem to be absolutely set on the issue of stopping Bill C-2, which is the only reason for this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very precise. I said that the NDP engaged in a hypocritical act.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the NDP member try to justify the fact that he is trying to delay the tackling violent crimes act, which is exactly what this so-called debate is about.

Having been an expert person on the committee, the member knows full well that this motion is absolutely useless. The committee ended up passing a motion that is ultra vires. It is beyond the ability of the committee, the governor in council and beyond the ability of anyone, except to amend the Broadcasting Act. Surely he is not talking about amending the Broadcasting Act.

I say again that Canadians should note that the Bloc Québécois does not care about tackling violent crime. If we hear a long speech from the member who just stood about absolutely nothing, we will also know that the NDP, in spite of the fact that only one of its members stood last night to vote against Bill C-2, when its members stood and made it appear as those they were actually serious about tackling violent crime, it was a hypocritical act for them to stand and make it appear as though they were actually in favour of Bill C-2. I would say to the Liberals exactly the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite important for Canadians to realize what this debate right now is all about. It is about the Bloc Québécois, that does not want to discuss the tackling violent crime act, just delaying. There is absolutely no reason for this motion to be here.

The member knows full well that according to the Broadcasting Act there could never be a broadcasting policy directive that would not go to the committee for consideration. Therefore, the motion is absolutely useless.

What is very instructive is that last night on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, members of this House voted in favour of the bill by a vote of 222 to 1. I am not sure whether the member voted in favour of it or whether she was in the House but the fact was that the Bloc Québécois, in putting on a show last night that it was actually serious about crime, stood and made it appear as though it were in favour of the tackling violent crime act.

It will be instructive to see what happens with the NDP and the Liberals as it relates to this motion. If they stand and continue this farce that is presently going on, this debate that is absolutely unnecessary because the motion carries absolutely no value, it will tell Canadians everything they need to know.

Is the NDP serious about tackling violent crime? Are the Liberals serious about tackling violent crime? We know that the Bloc is not, in spite of the fact that it stood and voted for it last night. What are the NDP and the Liberals going to do? This debate should end.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke will know that I have a tremendously high regard for him as an individual; we worked on committees together. Perhaps to people who would read this debate or see us on television, they might find it a little unusual for a totally devoted nationalist, myself, I am a Canadian first, last and always, to have a high regard for him as an individual, however, I do.

What I do not have a high regard for are his ideas. His ideas are an anachronism. His ideas are done. They are toast. It is over.

What we are looking at with the Government of Canada and the current Prime Minister is a man who understands Canada, a man who can understand the dreams and aspirations of the people of the province of Quebec. He understands those aspirations. He moved the motion that would recognize the Québécois as a nation. We are moving forward to a united Canada, and I invite my friend to join us.

[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the CRTC is a body that is independent of the House but our government continues to monitor these things very closely.

[David Adams, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada I wish to acknowledge the passing this week of an outstanding Canadian artist and first male principal dancer of the National Ballet of Canada, David Adams.

Mr. Adams was born in Winnipeg in 1928 where he began his training and performing career with one of the founders of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. He had a distinguished career in both England and Canada as a dancer, choreographer and teacher.

Mr. Adams joined the National Ballet as a leading dancer in 1951. In 1966 he was awarded the Festival de l'Opera Gold Medal for his performance of Giselle with Galina Samsova.

Mr. Adams settled in Alberta where he made a huge contribution to dance in western Canada for many years.

Karen Kain, Artistic Director of the National Ballet of Canada, remembered Mr. Adams this week with respect and admiration.

Honoured as an Officer of the Order of Canada, David Adams will be long remembered as a key figure in the early days of ballet in Canada.

[Speech from the Throne, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia are enthusiastic about yesterday's throne speech.

Our mandate is based on five clear priorities: a proud and sovereign Canada in which the government rigorously defends Canada's place in the world; a strong federation; a prosperous future; a healthy environment for Canadians, in which the government will continue to improve the environment and health of Canadians; and a safe and secure Canada, in which the government will continue to tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians by reintroducing important crime legislation with the new tackling violent crime act and by putting a strong focus on safe communities and youth and property crime.

Our government is going to make effective use of all resources while it gets tough on crime, and it is going to repeal the long gun registry, which has proven to be an abysmal waste of money.

The throne speech is about getting the job done in the Kootenays.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous hard work that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has done on this file. He has been tireless. He indeed has exposed the Liberal boondoggle for what it was.

I have a quick question for him. Recognizing that at this particular point there is about a six month backlog for people being able to actually acquire a licence when they purchase a gun, would he not agree with me that it is something like going to an automobile dealership, paying for a car, getting the insurance for the car and then being told that sometime, somewhere, perhaps in the next six months, we could come back and actually use the car?

I think the member would agree with me that it is exceptionally frustrating. For law-abiding citizens in Canada to have to put up with that kind of frustration builds toward the potential for real anarchy as a result of this ill-conceived and useless registry.