Jim Abbott

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the vice-chair of the committee sitting behind me who says that they are not. I have the representation from our fisheries critic who says that they are not.

What this is about is bringing as much pressure as we can possibly bring to this issue. There must be a solution to this that is going to be a long lasting and complete solution.

It may be that the work of Mr. Justice Bryan Williams will be able to shed some light on it. It may be that in the course of time there will be some work toward coming to a solution, but what the motion today is about is specifically to get an independent light shed on this.

It is not exclusive. Our motion does not say that everything else is shut down and that we will go exclusively for a judicial inquiry. We are simply asking for a judicial inquiry because we must have a bright light on this topic. We must have the details of what is going on so that there will be pressure on the department to bring corrective resolution to this desperate situation.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

No, I wouldn't bring that up.

We are supposed to be seeing representation of British Columbia by these Liberals. This is what the Prime Minister promised during this last election campaign: “If I do not get over the whole issue of alienation of people from the west, then I guess I'm going to be a failure”.

The dithering Prime Minister is a failure because the people who are currently in his cabinet are incapable. Either that or they are gagged in not being able to bring this issue to a head, in not being able to bring this issue to resolution.

This is absolutely inadequate. The reason why now we are calling for a judicial inquiry is that in the longer term this must be removed from the political process. In the longer term, there must be someone who is fully competent and fully capable of shedding a light on this. Hopefully from that this government will end up doing what is necessary to avoid a continuation of this environmental disaster.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Conservative caucus has been seized with this right from the word go. The 21 Conservative members who come from British Columbia recognize this as being one of the key issues, not only for people in our province but indeed for the environment, for ecology and for a major world food source. This is not an incidental problem.

Right now we have wiped out fully 25% of the Fraser River salmon run, and I repeat, 25%. If this should continue to go awry, if we do not get this right, by next year we will have wiped out half. If we do not get this right the following year, three-quarters of all of the salmon in the Fraser River will be gone. This is not a political problem. This is an environmental disaster.

Going back to October 7 of this year, our B.C. regional caucus put out a news release stating that we wanted action on the Fraser River salmon fishery. At that time we were not talking about a judicial inquiry. In fact, we were saying something had to happen a whole lot faster. Our reaction was that the federal Liberal government was dithering while salmon fish stocks on the Fraser River face extinction. The government received warning after warning that the situation could happen, but failed to do anything about it.

I note that the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon said, “I repeatedly urged the government to implement the recommendations of the 2001 salmon fishery report. The government refused to take this advice and now look at where we are”.

We should understand that the impact on the economy and aboriginal communities of such low salmon runs is devastating. The British Columbia fisheries, both recreational and commercial, are currently the province's fourth largest industry, generating approximately $2 billion a year for B.C.'s economy. Many aboriginal communities also rely on the resource for food and ceremonial purposes. Our natural resources critic from Vancouver Island said, “Jobs will certainly be threatened if the problem isn't fixed”.

“It's also evident that aboriginal groups may not receive the resources they need for food and ceremonial purposes” was a comment from our Indian affairs critic. That would be truly devastating to their culture and way of life.

Our B.C. caucus has been seized with this issue right from the beginning of this Parliament. It was our B.C. caucus and these efforts, with the cooperation of members from other parties, I must say, on the fisheries committee, that got us to the point where the committee actually had the hearings in Vancouver and gave the opportunity for people to have input.

If I may say so, it was a bit of a disappointment, this being as serious an issue as it is, that we got such minuscule coverage from the news media, whether television, radio or print, about these hearings, because indeed that was part of the solution. With the kind of pressure that can only come when we have proper exposure in Canada's news media, I would hope that pressure on the fisheries minister would continue.

Our fisheries critic said that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans needed to reconvene immediately, which it did. This goes back to October 7. He said, “We need to examine this issue and provide advice to the government that is objective and credible”.

I note that our associate fisheries critic, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, proposed this motion today along with our natural resources critic, who is a member from Vancouver Island. We are trying to force this issue. It should be noted that of the total of 99 members in the Conservative caucus in Ottawa, they were in agreement with us. Whether it was a member from Newfoundland and Labrador, the members from Ontario or the members from Prairies, they were in full agreement that although it is a regional issue there has to be pressure from the House of Commons, and it is the Conservatives from B.C. that are bringing this pressure to try to create a proper situation.

I did a little research. I went back to a parliamentary report prepared for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, dated April 7, 1995. One might wonder why I went back as far as 1995. This is sort of déjà vu, because on page 14 of this document the recommendations are as follows: “In the end the Board concluded there was no definitive answer as to exactly what went wrong in the 1994 season. According to the Board, in many respects the frustration of 1994 lies in the fact that no one, including the authorities, the experts and this Board, knows precisely what happened or exactly how it happened. However, this is no excuse for not taking action to ensure that what happened in 1994 does not happen again”.

That is wonderful, Mr. Speaker. That was the recommendation from 10 years ago and do we know what? It did not happen again; it happened worse, far worse than what they were actually faced with in 1994. The report goes on to state that, “To this end, the Board made 35 recommendations in dealing with a series of issues including institutional problems, quality management, enforcement, the aboriginal fisheries strategy, the environment, and responsibilities of user groups. Among the 35 recommendations made by the Board were the following highlights”, and I have all the following highlights.

This was 10 years ago. What was the government response? In response to the recommendations of the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board, the minister announced a five point action plan for the 1995 Pacific salmon fishery. Wonderful. We have an action plan from only 10 years ago. It said:

--a more conservative approach to management; increased enforcement and compliance; better integration of science and management priorities; a tough stance on the conditions of agreements under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, particularly with respect to pilot sales; and, necessary measures to build a fishery of the future based on recommendations from industry on fleet capacity.

This is what all those recommendations are worth: here we are fully 10 years later with exactly the problem that we had before, only this time the problem has been magnified. This is grossly inadequate.

This is an environmental disaster. To this day I do not understand it, with the supposed power and strength that the Liberals now have. They have five ministers on the front bench, although I must say I believe it was the member from Sarnia who just yesterday was in the press as saying that he questioned their intellectual capacity and their ability to be able to fulfill their job. That was a Liberal member talking about the Liberal front bench, but we will leave that one aside.

The point is that we are supposed to--

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was reading the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans from June 2003, which, by the way, was unanimously supported by all parties, and I noted that there were a number of recommendations.

Recommendation No. 1 states:

That DFO return to a single commercial fishery for all Canadians, in which all participants in a particular fishery would be subject to the same rules and regulations. Consequently DFO should bring to an end the pilot sales projects and convert current opportunities under the pilot sales program into comparable opportunities in the regular commercial fishery.

That was one of 10 recommendations. I wonder if our fisheries critic would be able to tell us, considering that this was an all party unanimous report, including the government of the day, the Bloc and ourselves, how many of these 10 recommendations were actually acted on by the Department of Fisheries. Once we have that answer, perhaps he could tell us why he thinks the DFO responded in the way it did.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this morning the member, along with all other B.C. Conservative members, would have received a package of information on our fax machine from a senior advisor, Pacific agriculture and ocean action plan.

This gentleman, on behalf of the Department of Fisheries, and presumably the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, told us, as members know, the Conservatives have put forward a votable motion calling for a judicial inquiry into the Fraser River sockeye salmon run of 2004.

However, the fisheries minister recently announced an independently led post-season review, chaired by former Chief Justice Brian Williams. He went on about the fact that work has begun and that significant recommendations will be produced by March 31, 2005, in time for implementation for the 2005 season.

I know our fisheries critic has already referred to this, but I wonder if he could give us an idea of how practical this is. In other words, I hold in my hand a tremendous number of documents that arrived in my office, as a member of Parliament, that seem to indicate that everything is fine, that there would not be any difficulty to get this report out by March 31, 2005.

I would expect that my friend would have a contrary opinion. I wonder if he could outline why he would hold that contrary opinion.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's words ring very hollow in my constituency and with the Canada border customs inspectors. Those words are unbelievably shallow because the reality does not match the words.

The fact of the matter is that they are under-resourced. They are in perilous danger. It is the same thing as saying to a drug officer, “If you are going into a drug bust and things don't work out, just back out of it”. That is the policy of Canada customs. The interim policy of Canada customs states that if there is a problem, back out and look for resources. I just explained that earlier. The people who are listening to this parliamentary secretary will find his words mercilessly hollow.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the untimely, perhaps, unnecessary death of Adam Angel, 42 years old, a Canada customs border officer at Roosville in my constituency, has shone a light on the federal Liberals' systemic starvation of resources to protect our borders.

Customs inspectors from British Columbia and parts of Alberta will be converging at the Roosville border crossing tomorrow to protest safety and security conditions at the port. The death of Mr. Angel had a very traumatic effect on Canadian customs officers. The officers say the safety and security of Canada is simply not good enough. It certainly is not as it should be, and that is why they will be demonstrating. So what is the background?

On October 17, 2004 Adam should not have been working alone. He was fatally ill and struggled all night long and finally collapsed at 6 a.m. He died shortly after.

The situation highlights the dangerous situation that our border and customs agents are placed in when required to work alone. They are working alone up to 30% of the time.

Four days after his death, Mr. Angel's supervisor advised her superiors, “I do not know how long we will be able to sustain two CIs per shift, both financially and burnout wise, but I will keep at it until I am directed to do otherwise”. Unfortunately two weeks later, they were back to one person.

The Deputy Prime Minister told the House that all was well because her ministry was doing a study. I have copies of many studies. They detail faulty communication equipment, lack of training, and a total lack of resources.

One report called “Working Alone Strategy” analyzes 139 ports. Ninety-two sites, or 66%, reported technical difficulties with communication tools, with 40% of all sites reporting difficulties contacting their main office due to no one being in the main office or a breakdown in communication tools. There are inadequate safeguards, such as poor lighting, narrow counters, and doors that do not lock.

A previous border services report detailed work alone sites in remote areas. It also said that about 70% of these sites face technical difficulties with communication tools.

The ModuSpec report, “A Job Hazard Analysis”, made 26 recommendations. In the two years since that report was released, only half of the recommendations have been acted on. The Canadian Customs Officers Critical Incident Summary Report profiles over 100 dangerous, life threatening events. The Paul Burkfolder report, the working alone strategy, reports, reports and recommendations, what else is needed?

All of these things were known prior to Adam Angel's death, yet little has happened. Why? Because of a lack of resources. At Roosville for example, there are 29 staff on the American side of the border compared to 10 employees on the Canadian side, which is why we cannot double shift. Is it any wonder officers are refusing to work alone?

Last month at 3 a.m. a customs inspector followed the CCRA policy to allow two dangerous looking individuals to proceed. He called the closest police who were more than one hour away from Roosville. He was told “Sorry, I can't come either because I'm working alone as well”.

Today there was a headline, “We can't afford terror fight”. Even if a threat is known, the RCMP report that they do not have enough staff to stop it. This is a chronic Liberal shortage.

It is dishonest to state that the Liberals have provided sufficient resources for border security. It is dishonouring to Mr. Angel's widow and family to imply that all is well. Once again the Liberals are saying one thing and are underperforming on the other. How can the U.S. take us seriously? More important, how can Canadians feel safe?

[Privilege, December 1st, 2004]

--with the visit of President Bush and then turned around and went to his dinner, I think that, if anything, was as much a basis for the kind of response that happened in this House.

[Privilege, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, I am very supportive of your role in the capacity in which you serve this House.

I recognize that there is an overall blanket issue we are talking about, but I would like to refer specifically to what we are talking about here today and this particular event.

For good reason, there are words that are listed, and out of respect for the Chair I will not use any examples, and which we do not use in this House for the simple reason that they cause a furor and an uproar in the House. Although in many instances the words themselves may be true and a true characterization of something that someone has said or done, nonetheless we do not use them because they cause an uproar.

I am trying to be as respectful as I possibly can be here, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the fact that the leader of the NDP took the massively hypocritical position of encouraging people to demonstrate, to demonstrate very actively, demonstrate to the point of illegality--

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I say shame to the member for trying to subvert the whole purpose of the motion.

To actively urge other member states and non-governmental organizations to support this goal was the motion that was passed in the House. The member simply parroted the speech on behalf of the bureaucrats at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

On May 23, 2003 he voted in favour of this motion, along with the government whip, the House leader and his deputy, the President of the Treasury Board and his deputy and the following current ministers: justice, international trade, veterans affairs, natural resources, Canadian heritage, labour and housing, infrastructure and communities, Indian and northern affairs; and the parliamentary secretaries to the following ministers: industry, national defence, public works and government services; and the ministers of state for family and caregivers, federal economic development, infrastructure and communities, and foreign affairs.

In spite of the support that, as backbenchers, the member and those other people who are now in the federal cabinet showed this motion, they are somehow silent. Why?