Jim Abbott

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand exactly what my friend from the Bloc Québécois was referring to.

I see this as being a fantastic opportunity for trade, to broaden our ability to get into the world of trade and to broaden our capacity to trade with people other than the United States which we are dependent upon for 85% of the trade as far as our economy is concerned. As a consequence, I apologize to my friend because I am not clear on exactly what it is that he was referring to.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the chair of the B.C. caucus for the official opposition. The B.C. caucus has been seized with this the entire time we have had the opportunity to represent the good people of British Columbia. Interestingly though, this is not just a British Columbia issue. This is an issue for all of Canada, as I said previously in some questions and comments.

The fact that we cannot easily get our imports and exports flowing off of the west coast of Canada is an issue for all Canadians, as I mentioned to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. While in another parliament, as secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, he boasted about the fact he went to Asia. The Liberal government has been around for the last 12 or 13 years. What has it done?

I could not possibly agree more with the member who just spoke. He said “too little, too late”. I can only hope that it is not too late.

The Government of Canada has been pushed almost mercilessly by the province of British Columbia and our caucus on this issue. On October 21 the Government of Canada announced a $590 million Pacific gateway strategy. Let us take a look at the $590 million strategy and what this legislation represents.

The main elements were up to $125 million over five years in transportation infrastructure. Of the $125 million, $90 million is for one project alone, the Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill interchange to replace the pair of swing bridges that are unable to handle traffic volumes during peak hours. That is $30 million over four years. By my math, that comes down to $7.5 million a year for the construction of a number of new road rail separations within the rail corridor from Mission/Matsqui to Deltaport and a contribution toward an environmental assessment of the proposed south Fraser perimeter road.

It costs in the neighbourhood of $15 million per overhead railway crossing. The $7.5 million a year would mean two more overhead rail crossings in a very busy corridor where trains are a mile and a half long, which effectively cut Langley in half and all the other places where they are at ground level crossings. The $590 million suddenly is coming up a little short. Up to $35 million over five years is to fund the secretariat for the new Pacific gateway council. This is another bureaucracy that we do not need.

An additional $400 million is for future initiatives to develop and exploit the Pacific gateway, including initiatives and response to recommendations of the Pacific gateway council. Of the $590 million, at this point only $125 million, plus $35 million for a total of $160 million has been earmarked. The $400 million will be spent at some future point in time, if we can get around to it.

In fairness this is something and it is going in the correct direction. However, to give the province of British Columbia credit and to a certain extent to the Conservative official opposition from British Columbia, it is something that is finally being announced by the government. It is amazing that it has taken so long.

Over the past two years, the British Columbia government has made numerous visits to Ottawa and two major submissions seeking Canada's commitment to a comprehensive Asia-Pacific strategy. As Canada's only Pacific province, British Columbians know first-hand that Asia looms large in Canada's future domestically as well as internationally.

Until recently, however, the fundamental shift taking place in the global economy was slow to register on the rest of the country and certainly slow to register here in Ottawa. With Asia occupying an increasingly central role in global commerce, it is a region vital to Canada's future prosperity. Because of the west coast's location, uniquely increasing Asian credentials is the ideal North American gateway for trans-Pacific commerce, trade, transportation and cultural links.

The projected growth in marine traffic is quite unprecedented. By 2020, Asia Pacific container traffic is projected to increase 300%. This anticipated growth is validated by today's growth experience. Pacific gateway ports handle half of Canada's maritime exports and 85% of the western provinces' marine exports from grain, coal, forest products, petroleum and petrochemicals. Currently, this trade equals approximately $35 billion a year in trade and contributes approximately $4 billion annually in economic output to the Canadian economy.

What fundamentally has happened is this has occurred in spite of the federal Liberals. Shame on them because they should have been paying attention long before now. They have had 12 years. They have dragged their heels on this and only now have been dragged into this.

However, the Pacific gateway transportation system faces several challenges. Container traffic through ports in British Columbia is expected to quadruple by 2020 and has already triggered a need for more than $1.5 billion in terminal developments in the province. The federal government had only committed to $590 million. At this point, it has not keyed any of that $590 million to this $1.5 billion in terminal developments in the province.

The rapid growth in traffic is putting pressure on the port system. Shippers have serious concerns about the condition, capability and future reliability of ports, road and rail services and infrastructure. Bottlenecks already are causing some shippers to reroute traffic through the Panama Canal to east coast ports, including Canadian east coast ports. I guess there is a bit of salvation there, except for the fact that a major amount of the traffic that is currently being rerouted is being routed into Seattle, Tacoma, Long Beach, all the way down the coast. We are losing business in Canada because of the lethargy and slowness of the federal Liberals to react to this.

Our current share of west coast container traffic is about 1.8 million TEUs. A TEU is a standard 20 foot equivalent unit steel ocean shipping container or 9% of North American traffic. The rest goes to the United States. Our port strategy targets 8 million to 9 million TEUs and that is a 16% to 17% market share compared to 9% today.

In spite of the federal Liberals dragging their feet, the opportunities amazingly are still there. However, in real terms we are faced with challenges as a result, not only because of the lack of attention that the Liberals have paid in coming forward with this specific initiative but also with respect to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport basically has dragged his feet on the issue of the borrowing capacity of the port of Vancouver, thereby effectively tying its hands.

As was pointed out by my colleague from Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, the critic for transportation, the port of Vancouver borrowing capacity should be limitless, that is, it should be to a business plan put together by the people on the ground who know these issues best, the Fraser River Port Authority, the dredging capacity, everything.

The Prime Minister has the audacity to say that he will deal with western alienation. He will pay attention to what goes on in the west. With respect to this bill, I am glad he has at least opened one eye and rolled over.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize this member who in a former Parliament was involved as the secretary of state for Asia-Pacific. He understands that area; I acknowledge that. However, I must ask, why has it taken so long?

Why, when this Liberal government has been in power for the last 12 or 13 years, has it taken so long? Why have the Liberals only now finally got around to a half measure? I just do not understand.

Where is the emphasis on British Columbia? It is not only for the people of British Columbia; it is for the whole nation of Canada. We indeed are, as described in the member's speech, in British Columbia, the gateway to Asia-Pacific. To this point, in spite of the fact that he had a significant role, in Asia-Pacific, in representing Canada, in the Chrétien government, nothing ever happened. This Prime Minister has now finally come forward with this measure, which is a measure that our party certainly is going to support. I would not say it is too little too late, but I would say it is too little. Why has it taken so long?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my new friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley that I was a little underwhelmed with his speech.

I know members of Parliament who have come from that area and Mike Scott comes to mind. He came here and represented his area. Considering that this is an issue that has direct relevance, particularly to Prince Rupert and secondarily to Kitimat, I am surprised that the member did not have more facts and figures, and was prepared to stand up more for his constituency.

We heard again and again all of the platitudes and NDP bromides, but we did not hear anything specific from him for his constituents. Even the previous member, Andy Burton, would come here and act in a very solid way for his constituents. I wonder if it was the fact that this bill only came down last week and perhaps the member did not have time to get all of his facts and figures together. However, surely to goodness, we should be hearing specifically about how many millions of dollars are going to be required in Prince Rupert for the facilities. What are the facilities going to be?

He should be talking about the upgrading of the rail links, the fact that the tunnels are going to have to be made larger for the double-stacked containers, and the pipeline that is currently being considered. What will that mean to the people of Kitimat? I say with the greatest of respect that I was quite underwhelmed with the member and the way that he just did not represent his constituents.

I wonder, though, if he would care to comment on the fact that of the $590 million announced by the Liberals, up to $125 million over five years in transportation infrastructure is earmarked, but in fact $90 million of that is going to be used for construction of the Pitt River bridge. Although millions of dollars have been announced, in fact what we require in British Columbia is at least $5 billion not $590 million.

Again, speaking of underwhelming, certainly the resources that are being brought to this question by the Liberals are indeed very underwhelming and represent, at the very best, only a down payment in what we are going to require in British Columbia.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the lack of will on the part of the government over the last more than a decade of changing the laws and making the necessary amendments to the laws, a culture, unfortunately, has developed within the judicial system itself that has become so technical and so parsing of so many words that we have seen the rise of judicial activism on the part of the Supreme Court that has swept right down through the other courts.

The police have actually had the ability to do their jobs taken away from them by virtue of all the paperwork they have to generate. We have reached the point where if a police officer pulls someone over suspecting the person of being under the influence of alcohol, the officer is better off letting that person go than trying to create a file. Any file that the police create will be a starting point of an inch thick with the first set of forms. This has occurred and is growing exponentially under the Liberal government.

I fully recognize that enforcement is a provincial issue but at the end of the day the fact that the police are being hindered by the courts of being able to enforce the laws is a direct result of the soft on crime Liberals. It is very frustrating.

In answer to my colleague, it is not just the laws, it is also the application of the laws and the complexity that has been created by an ever-increasing interference by the judicial system which is clearly encouraged by the Liberal government.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with this House is that of course we are politicians and this is a political process. Our friends on the other side have that down to a fine art where they can make things appear, like they are in this case, a reflection of the bills that Chuck Cadman would bring forward. If anything, they have managed to get the finesse of actually sucking in the NDP members to the point where they would actually say that this is the essence of what he proposed.

The only thing that has happened, unfortunately, is that this House has grown weaker in its ability to be able to make any real changes in the justice system.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I count it a great privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-65. The reason in particular is the way the bill has been characterized as being a tribute to Chuck Cadman. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false, totally false.

I had the privilege last Saturday of visiting very briefly with Donna Cadman, Chuck's wife. We did not discuss the bill, although I know she is familiar with the reasons that our party is having a tremendous amount of difficulty with the bill. I count myself as having been exceptionally privileged as having become a friend of Chuck's and I take great offence when I hear the justice minister of Canada referring to this bill as a tribute to my friend, Chuck Cadman.

I was also rather perplexed when I heard just a few minutes ago a member of the NDP refer to this bill as the essence of what he proposed. Well, the smell of a skunk is the essence of perfume, but it does not have anything to do with anything pleasant or anything related to what we would normally think of in terms of a perfume.

Bill C-65 as far as it goes is fine, but the next thing I can visualize is that the Liberals in a dishonest approach will say, “The Conservatives are not really serious about this issue. They would not even back the memory of Chuck Cadman. Look at what they are doing. They are going to be voting against the bill. It is the essence of Chuck Cadman”. It is not the essence of Chuck Cadman.

Chuck Cadman understood that while some of the parts of the bill are essential, truly the devil is in the details. Chuck Cadman had been attempting to legislate changes to street racing provisions since 2002. As some of my colleagues pointed out, again and again Chuck Cadman was rebuffed not only in this chamber, not only with the rejection of his bills, but also at the justice committee. He was constantly rebuffed by the Liberals.

I do recall at Chuck's funeral, and it was a fitting tribute to a very special man, that the minister related that in jest Chuck said that he had voted with the Liberals on the confidence motion and wondered if God would not be pleased. He said it in jest, but he worked constantly throughout his honourable time in this institution to try to bring some real change to justice. He worked honourably against the Liberals who were constantly opposed to him because they refused to do what was absolutely necessary to bring justice back to our justice system.

Currently we have a legal system in Canada, not a justice system. Chuck Cadman worked to that end.

Previous versions of the bill include Bill C-338 and Bill C-230. The government had refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased punishment for repeat offenders.

The Liberals are so soft on crime that they are constantly creating revolving doors. They are constantly looking to make sure that the person who has committed the crime is treated with kid gloves while the victims' families can go hang. That is a bad attitude. That is a wrong attitude. It is an attitude that the people of Surrey North, the people of Surrey, the people of British Columbia and indeed the people of Canada reject of the Liberals, that they are constantly so soft on crime.

We constantly supported the measures that Chuck Cadman brought forward. I recall a gentleman when Chuck initially came to the House of Commons, Larry Park. Larry was Chuck's legislative assistant. Larry was as committed as Chuck to these amendments to the Criminal Code. Larry and Chuck would work for hour after hour, weekend after weekend. I am sure that Donna must have wondered if she had become a widow with the amount of dedication that Larry and Chuck had to bringing these things forward.

If I am speaking with some emotion today it comes from the well of emotion that I have within me to say that this is not Chuck Cadman's bill. It reminds me an awful lot of an event that actually happened during the U.S. presidential election. George Bush's running mate was Dan Quail. When he tried to play down his youth in the vice-presidential debate by pointing out that he had as much experience as Jack Kennedy when he ran for president in 1960, his opponent, Lloyd Bentsen, pounced and said, “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy”.

I say to the justice minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you are no Chuck Cadman, you do not understand, you just do not understand.

We want to make the following amendments. They cannot be made at this particular stage but we will be proposing them on the assumption that the Liberals will be supported yet again by the NDP for this bill to move forward.

We will be making the following amendments: for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year; for a second and subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life; for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and, for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

For the people who are reading this text, other than lawyers, for people who may be watching these proceedings on television right now, that sounds like an awful lot of detail. However, as I said earlier, the devil is in the detail. This is the detail that Chuck Cadman would have had in this bill.

I say again that the Minister of Justice of Canada is misleading Canadians and is misleading the House. It is regrettable that the NDP has fallen into the trap of his misleading when he tries to say that this is Chuck Cadman's bill. Chuck Cadman was a friend of mine and this is not his bill.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the money has to come from somewhere. That is the reality.

The bill effectively makes sure that compensation up to a cap of $3,000 is taken care of. The statistics that I have read out are that the actual amount that will likely be sought by workers will only be $1,500, statistically.

I think that all members of the House are in agreement that there must be respect for the work that people do and that they must be properly compensated. That is taken care of.

The difference between the NDP and me and particularly the Conservative Party is the recognition that somebody somewhere has to pay. If I pledge an asset and if that asset could potentially be depreciated by the amount of potential claim against that asset by workers, then that will be the value of the asset. It will be the value of the asset minus the potential claim which will be the net value of the asset and that is the amount that the lender will choose to lend.

We cannot as politicians say to a lending institution that it must lend money. That institution must make that choice. It is a voluntary choice.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments. It must be a frosty Friday, because I am agreeing with a Liberal.

One of the other ideas which I think really deserves a look-see is the idea of there being a small contingency fund put into the EI fund, that is, not from EI premiums. There should be a small contingency fund set into EI funding so that does not come out of general revenue. There might be consideration taken to not having the superpriority. In other words, it would be paid out of the fund from the extra premium that would be collected on EI funds. That way the actual cost of this potential benefit to the workers would come directly from their employment.

That would be another way to do it. It would not upset the relationship between the borrower and the lender.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to this bill, primarily because in the 13 years that I have had the privilege of being the member for Kootenay—Columbia, I have always taken very seriously the issue of workers and people in my community who are in the labour market .

This was driven home particularly in 1993, immediately after I was elected. There was a massive bankruptcy of a very major corporation in my constituency. There were wages owed. There were very severe difficulties with pensions. I am proud to say that through the hard work of my staff and my office in Cranbrook we managed to do what was right for the workers, at least to the greatest extent possible.

I have never wavered in my commitment to the workers or to the companies and businesses in my constituency and I try to represent them as aggressively and as well as I possibly can in this chamber, but it was through that massive bankruptcy and the work we had to do on behalf of the people who had been formerly employed by the bankrupt company that I became acutely aware of some of the stories of real hardship.

It was therefore very interesting to me to be working and finding myself in a small degree of agreement with the member for Winnipeg Centre. It is very difficult for me to have any kind of very frequent connection with some of the more socialist thoughts of the NDP. NDP members have a tendency to be a bit pie in the sky; however, the member for Winnipeg Centre and I, although we have had some differences of opinion, have also found some common ground.

Certainly, the way that the NDP was proposing to handle this issue to be able to give greater protection to workers in the event of bankruptcy was not one that was possibly acceptable to my way of thinking and certainly not to my caucus or the leader of our party. So what we did was sit down together, recognizing that there was a common objective. We wanted to arrive at the same place.

We sat down. I am sure that in speeches prior to mine from members of our caucus, members have heard our very competent member of the shadow cabinet stand in his place and describe the fact that we actually formed an ad hoc committee within our caucus, under the leadership and with the direction of the leader of the Conservative Party, to try to take a look at how we could resolve this issue.

We took a look at two things on the basis of the initiative that had been brought forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre. The first was the issue of wages and the second was the issue of pensions in the event of bankruptcy. We decided that those two issues, although they appeared on the surface to be the same, were significantly different, certainly in the way in which bankruptcy could handle them.

Then, when the Minister of Labour and Housing came forward with Bill C-55, I took a very hard, independent look at the bill, along with the other members of our caucus committee, and came to the conclusion that, while the government had approached this from a different angle than we would have approached it, nonetheless there were some real grounds to be able to move forward and the nitpicking and the details could be taken care of at committee.

I note that the majority of bankruptcies occurs in sectors that employ a large number of workers who are low paid, part time, or on temporary contracts, who do not have the protection of a union. This does not mean that this bill will not be applicable to workers who are part of a union or to workers who are part of a larger corporation, but the reality is that 60% of bankruptcies occur in the retail, food and accommodation, personal services, and small manufacturing sectors. The other interesting statistic is that 70% of bankruptcies occur among businesses with fewer than 10 employees, which also tend to offer precarious conditions of employment.

The $3,000 cap ensures that the basic levels of earnings are covered. The $3,000 cap means that the amount eligible under the wage earner protection program, WEPP, would be equivalent to one month's annual industrial wage for full time workers or four weeks' maximum insurable earnings under employment insurance. The $3,000 cap is sufficient to cover virtually all wage claims due to bankruptcy because the current average claim is about $1,500 and 97% of current wage claims are under $3,000.

There will always be exceptions. I can imagine a time when, unfortunately, there may be a bankruptcy which we perhaps cannot even foresee at this particular point and someone is going to try to stuff my words back into my mouth by saying, “See, I was one of those people over $3,000”, or “See, this was a large corporation”.

Those statistics are nonetheless very meaningful statistics and we have to do legislation in the chamber that is reflective of what is going to do the most good for the most people.

I have always cautioned people, whether they are managers or whether they are people in companies that have unions or do not have unions or whatever it is; it does not make any difference. I have said that we have to be very cautious. In a bankruptcy, the reason why there is a bankruptcy is that, by definition, the liabilities exceed the assets that can be liquidated and realized against those liabilities.

In a situation where we have a company that has gone into business in good faith and has basically said that it needs a $10,000 line of credit or a $100,000 line of credit from whatever the lending institution is, the lending institution then takes a look at the covenant, the person and the assets. If the lending institution wants to protect itself against a rather large amount of money, it asks what it can do to legally attach an asset to make sure that it will be repaid. That is simply called security. The money is advanced.

This bill does not affect that money. As I have explained again and again to people who have talked to me about this issue, it is very important to understand that when we say we are going to allow wages to be taken in advance of money that could be realized from a fixed or a secured asset, we depreciate the value of that asset and therefore lower the amount of money that would be available to the company in the first place. That is a very, very important consideration.

I see my friend from the NDP shaking his head. He cannot argue with the reality. If he were a lending institution, which I am sure would be unusual for an NDP member, and he could have a $50,000 asset, he would be prepared to advance up to $30,000 on that $50,000 asset. If someone told him that wages could possibly take $10,000 or $15,000 away from that asset in the event of bankruptcy, he would have to rethink how much he would actually be prepared to advance to the company in the first place. Anything that is done to reduce the value of a security for a potential lender reduces the amount of money the lender will give to the company. There is no way around that.

Therefore, I am a little concerned about the unsecured creditors, the people who would be providing the widgets, the gaskets, the switches, the rods, the clips, the flanges, the paper or the copiers, whatever it is that is being provided to the company on an unsecured basis. For those companies, particularly if this is an ongoing business and they become concerned about the potential of the business going into bankruptcy, in regard to the availability of credit, because there can be a charge with the superpriority that is put into this legislation and the potential for there to be this charge, there is going to be some difficulty and some reticence on the part of unsecured creditors in dealing with existing businesses.

Nothing comes for free. The money has to come from somewhere and it should never come out of general revenue. This is a business venture in which people are deciding that they are going to be working for wages or working for some form of remuneration.

That said, I believe, as does my party, that there is more than sufficient merit in the bill for it to move forward at second reading. When it gets into committee, all of the details that our critics and I are concerned about can be looked at.

I think there is a sufficient spirit of cooperation in this House to see that workers are properly taken care of. We should be able to come back from committee with probably an improved bill.