Jim Abbott

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

Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect the member who has brought this motion before the House. However, it was discussed in committee as he will know, and I made a couple of points in committee which I may as well put on the record here in the House of Commons. I will read that motion again:

--the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated long-term funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program, and report this recommendation to the House of Commons.

The member will recall that my concern and the concern of the minister and the government is that this is piecemeal. The member did acknowledge in his speech that the government is in the process of drafting a new Canadian museums policy.

My own personal point to the minister, to the government and in public has been that we must come up with a way of determining national significance not only for rail, but for other artifacts. Without a definition of national significance or being able to describe how to arrive at whatever the artifact is in terms of national significance, it then comes down to the fact that the only reason an enterprise, a museum or an organization would be applying to the national government is that the national treasury has the deepest pockets, which is not a good enough reason. There has to be some national significance.

As part of the development of the museum's policy, the Canadian government has to take a look at what we have in the national capital, take a look at the 2,200 or 2,300 museums across Canada and make some determination so that we can move forward. It is regrettable that the previous government over a 13 year period was unable or unwilling to come forward with a museums policy. We are working very hard on that. The government will not be supporting this motion for that reason.

The second reason, which I am very familiar with because the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel is in my constituency, is that to designate Exporail as Canada's national railway museum with dedicated long term funding outside the museums assistance program is to say that the federal government is only going to fund Exporail, period, full stop, end of statement. That is completely unfair not only on a morality basis of why should Exporail get it and others should not, but it is unfair to the people who have taken the time to come up with some tremendous artifact collections that are complete train sets and represent a national heritage.

There is nothing in this motion as explained in the member's comments in answers to questions that says that Exporail would become a repository or be able to roll out some of its displays. There is nothing in this motion to stipulate that at all. The member is an honourable gentleman and we can take his representations in good faith, but there is nothing in this motion to stipulate that.

As a consequence, this motion is singularly inadequate. It ends up virtually pitting Exporail against the properties in Squamish which the NDP member drew to our attention. I am aware that one of the artifacts that is on display in Revelstoke in my constituency is actually on loan from Exporail. I realize that is ongoing.

Again, this motion is singularly deficient. For two reasons, number one, it is premature, and number two, it is imprecise and therefore deficient, our government will be voting against this motion.

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend would like to come a bit closer to some reality. We are talking about textiles. He has brought in a couple of times the issue of his mother and the closeness that he feels about this. I could speak about my aunt who was also in the textile business. We all understand that aspect of it. Would he not agree that perhaps there is a responsibility on the part of not just the 308 members of Parliament here, but on the part of all 31 million Canadians?

Wal-Mart stores are not empty. They are filled with people who are making buying choices. Is the member saying that when an individual has a choice between a $95 pair of shoes made in China or a $300 pair of shoes made in Canada that the choice should be gone? Is he suggesting that we should put up barriers and that Gap should be unable to sell its products here? Is there not a responsibility on the part of all Canadian consumers to make these kinds of judgments?

On a vaguely related issue of fair trade, I point out to him, for example, coffee. Canadians can walk into a Safeway or a Loeb or whatever the store and buy some coffee with no questions asked. They can get it for $1 a pound or whatever the amount is. On the other hand, they will pay $3 or $4 a pound for fair trade coffee. Canadians are making these choices because they are educating themselves about the whole situation with respect to coffee.

Yes, there is a place for the government—

[Terrorism, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Air-India Victims Families Association is asking the Liberals to support their own legislation. They demand that Parliament extend the Anti-terrorism Act, that the Liberals stop their political gamesmanship and that the Liberals once again support the Anti-terrorism Act for another three years.

The victims say:

We believe that Prime Minister...is doing the right thing for the security of Canadians by attempting to extend this act.

If Parliament decides not to grant an extension to the Anti-terrorism Act, [we worry] that the federal government will lack the teeth to catch suspected terrorists and stop future attacks. This will also seriously impact the ongoing Air India investigation”.

We speak from first hand experience that Canada is not immune from terrorist attacks.

If the Liberals will not listen to the government, will they respond to a collective of over 200 victims family members who lost 329 loved ones in an act of terror?

[Academy Awards, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Oscar nominee, Ms. Torill Kove. Born and raised in Norway, Ms. Kove moved to Canada in 1982.

The Danish Poet, Torill's latest film, is a co-production by the National Film Board and Norway's MikroFilm. It is Miss Kove's second Oscar nomination and the 69th nomination for the National Film Board of Canada. This week the film won a Genie for best animated short film.

Torill's first professional film, My Grandmother Ironed the King's Shirts, co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada and Studio Magica of Oslo, won numerous international awards and was nominated for an Oscar as well.

Other Canadian Oscar nominees are: Ryan Gosling, best actor; Paul Haggis, best original screenplay; Paul Massey for sound mixing; and Water, a film by Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta as best foreign film.

Congratulations and good luck on Oscar night.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, for whom I have a very high personal regard, has pointed out that the point of view that is expressed by members when they come to this House is shaped two ways. One is for me or for the member to be speaking as an individual; the other is to represent the view, the perspective, the position of the party.

In this particular instance, if we can step away from the anti-terrorism bill for just half a second and deal with the issue at hand, what I find deeply regrettable and certainly leading to the kind of ridicule and criticism that citizens have of ourselves as politicians in this place is the fact that it was her justice minister, it was her government, that put these men in jail in the first place. They were there, and have been there, for five and a half years under her government's regime. Now, all of a sudden, just because the government has changed, the Liberals in turn changed their entire party position. Why would they do that?

The consistency of our freedoms depends on the consistency of the administration of justice and the principles under which we are governed. As long as we are seeing a major party in Canada, the Liberals, flipping and flopping and dashing and not knowing which way that party itself is going to go, it ends up creating an insecurity within Canada.

If it was the Green Party or if it was the Rhinoceros Party or if it was somebody who was just coming into the political mainstream, that would be one thing, but, regrettably, I have to report that it is the Liberals who have governed Canada for the majority of time that Canada has been in confederation. For them to be flipping and flopping and just trying to find a comfortable position to get into is highly regrettable and really goes to the core of who we are as Canadians and the values that we have as citizens in Canada. I find it deeply regrettable that the Liberals are not prepared to stand on principles, if they could find some.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this motion, particularly in light of my own personal history on the issue. I have always been deeply concerned about the rights of Canadians and the freedoms that we have in our society.

Going back to Bill C-36 and what is presently under consideration by this House, the motion to give an additional three years to the anti-terrorism law, it turns out that I am going to have to confess to the House and to Canadians that I made a mistake. I made a mistake five years ago when I voted against this anti-terrorism bill. It was the position of my party to support the Liberal government on the anti-terrorism bill.

The bill was proposed immediately prior to the break week in October, and the debate proceeded to the break week around Remembrance Day. During that period of time and those two breaks, I went around my constituency. I went to classrooms and to coffee shops. I conducted town halls. I listened to the people in my constituency.

The major concern coming out of all of that was the fact that the anti-terrorism bill as such was so odious and so bad, and so crushed the individual freedoms and liberties for which hundreds of thousands of Canadians died, that nobody wanted the bill. Although there are the two provisions that are now before the House for debate in the bill, and there is a five year sunset clause, there are other provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act that are virtually equally odious to the sense of freedom and the sense of fair play that we have in our society.

As a consequence of that, I chose to take a position contrary to the Canadian Alliance position at the time and contrary to that of my leader. I was one of two people in our party, I believe, who stood up and voted against that bill.

I am happy to say that I was wrong. I was wrong with my vote because, in the intervening period of time, we have seen that the police forces, the people who protect Canadian society, have not had occasion to enact any of those provisions, and that is good.

I was also wrong in taking a look at the potential for there to be a miscarriage of justice, for the potential for there to be excessive use, and for the potential for civil liberties of Canadians to be taken away.

Quite frankly, I feel somewhat qualified to speak to this particular motion because of the strong sense that I as an individual representing the people of Kootenay--Columbia have about the individual civil liberties of everybody in Canada.

Taking a look at this motion per se, and having listened to the presentation by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, I find his position, if indeed it is representative of where Liberal members are coming from, to be absolutely breathtaking in the scope of its hypocrisy.

His position is unsustainable when we look at the fact that my colleague from Abbotsford and I pointed out, which is that it was the Liberal justice minister who went before the press gallery, who spoke very well, very strongly and very purposefully about the Anti-Terrorism Act, and who actually saw the incarceration of these men. If it was not she, it was her predecessor, also a Liberal justice minister.

For him to be standing here and saying that just because we have changed government, just because the Conservatives are now in charge of the keys on the doors that we should be changing the system, if there is such a thing as logic in that argument, it absolutely eludes me. I do not comprehend other than for possible political posturing and advantage, why he would have chosen to have made that speech.

Although I disagree in the most fundamental way with the position the NDP members are taking on this issue and the position they take on a number of related issues, in my judgment, although I believe they are fundamentally wrong, they are nonetheless doing it because they believe it. There is a consistency to the NDP position.

There is a total inconsistency to the Liberals' position. We never know what it is going to be from day to day. The new leader of the Liberals I believe took a position on the anti-terrorism bill, or at least certainly his party did, which the Liberals have now completely overturned and flip-flopped on.

As a person who is deeply concerned about the personal freedoms and the rights that we have in Canada, I say to the Liberals to get their act together, to get some principles on the positions they are going to be taking on these issues. It is far too important.

I will argue and do everything I can within the law, within the legislative power of Parliament to defeat what the NDP members are talking about, but I do respect the fact that they are taking what they consider to be a principled position. It is a position that they have.

I find myself in despair over the fact that on issues that are so fundamental, so bedrock to who we are as Canadians and what our society represents, the Liberals wish and wash and flip and flop and we never know where they are going to end up.

I felt compelled to stand on this issue because it is one that has been immensely important to me as long as I have had the extreme privilege that I have had to represent the people of Kootenay--Columbia in this place.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I find the presentation by the Liberal member absolutely breathtaking. First off, these men were put into their current status by his government six years ago. It is only in the last year that they have decided to go on this hunger strike.

The dire consequences are of their own making. If we are to, as the member put it, save their lives, what are we to do? Are we to overturn what his government undertook six years ago, obviously for good reason, under the direction of the Liberal justice or Solicitor General people in his government? What has changed other than the fact that these men are choosing, making the wilful, intelligent choice, to starve themselves?

I find this totally amazing, and I would also like to correct the member on a couple of things. He said that this was against human rights and against Canadians. He apparently must have been out of the room or did not hear what the minister had to say. In fact, these laws, these provisions, are not against Canadians. They are against people who, in the judgment of the government of the day, the Liberals and now the Conservatives, pose a threat to the well-being and safety of people in Canada. The law is not against Canadians.

Furthermore, I point out, as the minister did earlier, and perhaps the member did not hear, that the courts have taken a look at this and have said that this complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The member is representing the government that put these men in their current status and I find his position immensely hypocritical.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the minister to briefly comment on what the reaction would be if indeed an unfortunate event occurred as a result of people being in our society who should have been isolated from our society. In other words, it is his responsibility, on behalf of our government and the government on behalf of Canadian people, to keep our streets and communities safe, particularly in these very perilous times. This measure that is being debated today obviously goes a long way to do that.

I wonder if he would care to comment on what he thinks the reaction of the Canadian public would be if in fact we did not exercise this kind of restraint.

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not only a Liberal but apparently he has a little difficulty hearing. The $100,000 difference between the Conservative minister and the former Liberal minister apparently does not seem to register on the member's scale.

The minister said she would look into the proactive disclosure and she has. The former Liberal minister's office picked up and chose what went on the disclosure for transportation. We are a government of accountability and we are committed to disclosing all expenses of the minister.

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight because it gives me an opportunity to totally refute the member's assertion.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women followed all of the Treasury Board guidelines. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

In a one year comparison of proactive disclosure, it is clearly shown that our government takes seriously its responsibility to Canadian taxpayers.

In terms of hospitality and travel expenses, the former Liberal minister of Canadian heritage spent $182,693.96 in 2005. In 2006 the current minister's office just spent over $82,000, a difference of $100,000 more than the current minister spent. We are getting the job done at less than half the cost.

I would also remind the member opposite that it was the former Liberal heritage minister, Hélène Scherrer, who hopped on a Challenger jet, flew to Calgary, rented a limo for her jaunt to Banff where she delivered a purely partisan political attack in the middle of an election campaign, and that too was all at the taxpayers' expense. That was not bad enough. The Liberal minister decided she did not want to travel with her staffer, so she rented a car for her to get her back. Access to information requests on the cost of the Challenger trip for the Liberal minister's Banff bonanza came in at over $23,000.

In fact, when we talk about proactive disclosure, let us not forget why this policy had to be instituted in the first place. It was because of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. The current government has instituted the most sweeping accountability reforms in the history of the country because members of the party opposite could not keep their sticky fingers out of the cookie jar.