Jim Abbott

[Canada Border Services Agency, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the untimely and perhaps unnecessary death of Adam Angel, a Canada customs border officer in my constituency, has shone a light on the federal Liberals' systemic starvation of resources to protect our borders. Adam should not have been working alone, but when he ended up in medical distress at 6 a.m., he had no one to turn to while our port ended up wide open to all comers until the next shift reported for work.

Why have the Liberals neglected our border security to the point that our customs officers are in mortal danger?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again I have to say nice try, but it just does not wash.

The federal Liberal members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada are the only people in Canada who are not clearly aware, or at least will not admit that the Prime Minister has clearly, specifically, gone back on his word.

Is the member saying per chance that Premier Hamm and Premier Williams do not understand English? Is he saying that they are too slow to understand the fact that the Prime Minister has gone back on his word?

Let me ask the member this question: How does the member explain the actions of Premier Williams when Premier Williams left the conference on equalization, was not prepared to take part and has clearly and specifically said that the Prime Minister of Canada is not to be trusted, that he is a person who will not keep his word? How does he explain Premier Williams' position?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that was a really nice try by the member, but the fact of the matter is we are discussing the fact that the Prime Minister did not keep his word. It has nothing to do with our promise or what we said or anything else. We would have followed through and we can have a debate about that, but this debate is about the fact that the Prime Minister has not kept his word.

I know the member to be a very honourable gentleman. He is also a person who is given to a great deal of candour in most of his public pronouncements. Let me ask him point blank in the expectation of a very candid answer. If he heard the Prime Minister, and particularly if he was to think for a second about the repetition of the Prime Minister's comments specifically as entered into this debate this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, how could the member possibly have arrived at any other conclusion than the fact that now as a result of the Prime Minister's current action, he has clearly, specifically gone back on his word?

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my friend on the other side of the House that the difficulty with everything he has spoken about is the timeframe. I have people in my constituency who have contacted me over a period not of days, weeks or months, but years. It has been years that I have had the privilege of representing them in this Chamber. People have been living in pain and discomfort, and many of them have been in virtual agony for years. It is not only them but their families too. What they hear from the member is more talk and more study.

I understand the concept of this government or any government having a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that the funds are properly disbursed, to ensure that they are responsible with the funds entrusted to them by the taxpayers of Canada. I have no difficulty with that as a concept. I would expect that of a government.

However, as I hear him talk and talk, and I see the continued inaction on the part of the Liberals, I say shame on them. This is not a partisan issue. To that extent I agree with it. However, it is the Liberal government that made this decision in past Parliaments. It is the Liberal government that has made the decision to continue to drag this out. Surely, if we have had this period of time, there is enough information for it to have an idea of what is going on.

There is an additional problem. Even when the funds do get into the system, the distribution is also completely gummed up. We are talking about the lives of Canadians that must be enriched and enhanced. I do not understand how the government can continue to talk and talk.

I do not know what answer this member can give me, but I would like to know, is there some kind of a deadline to this talk? Is there some point at which the people who have been suffering and who have been inflicted by hepatitis C are finally going to be able to purchase the resources they require? Are the funds ever going to get to them, or God forbid, are they going to be dead before the funds get to them?

[Foreign Affairs, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out by the foreign affairs critic for the official opposition, the European states also have a one China policy but they also support this kind of involvement of Taiwan in the WHO.

With the vote seven to three in favour of the government expressing support for the inclusion of Taiwan in the WHO, why did the government do this? How are we supposed to take the Prime Minister seriously when he will not pay attention to the House?

[Foreign Affairs, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 2003 the 37th Parliament gave direction to the House to “express its support for the admission of Taiwan as an observer to the World Health Organization and call upon the government to actively urge other member states and non-governmental organizations to support this goal”.

That was an explicit direction from the House with a vote of 163 to 67, yet when the government was faced with this at the WHO, it wimped out, backed out and did not follow the direction. Why?

[Patent Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I almost am reticent to bring not a sour note to the debate, as clearly on the substance of the bill itself the member preceding me has spoken very eloquently, and certainly it is reflective of the position of the Conservative Party and I think of all members of this House. We want to proceed with the bill.

I would just point out, though, one of the difficulties that we in the Conservative Party of Canada are experiencing at this point. It is the fact that on this bill, which is probably one of the most worthy bills that has come before the House in recent history, and on other bills that are presently before the House, we are at a third reading point. We are at a point of them being able to pass from this House to the other place, on through that process and to royal assent, and we consistently have the Liberal members filibustering their own bills.

I am not suggesting that this member's speech was a filibuster. It was not. It was a statement of where she is coming from and a very clear, eloquent statement of where her party is coming from, and, as I say, joined by all of us. I was interested, though, that at the end of her 10 minute time when she was informed that she had some more time--you will have to take a look at the blues, Mr. Speaker--I think there was something along the lines of “well, I guess I should keep going”. It was much the same way for the member for Yukon on the previous legislation immediately prior to this debate on this bill, where he was clearly just marking time.

So I would ask this member if she might not feel that it would be appropriate, at this point, subject to what our colleagues from the BQ and the NDP want to do, for her to just terminate the debate on the part of the Liberals so that we can get on with this and get on to other business in this place, rather than them continuing to filibuster their own bills.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

To quote you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was not your credibility that he was wondering about.

In taking a look at that question, again I really do not understand what this has to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that it is this government that has created a situation of spending a quarter of a billion dollars unnecessarily during this cycle of its tenure on the government side of the House. It is this Prime Minister who is holding the country up for ransom and it is he who must be held accountable by the official opposition in this chamber. That is where the debate lies.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather perplexed with this question from the point of view that I do not have a clue what in the world it has to do with anything. This is ridiculous.

What we are talking about here is the representation of the people of New South Wales or Victoria or Manitoba or British Columbia, or the representation of the people of Canada. We are talking about a democratic process that has been hijacked by the Prime Minister.

I should point out that the upcoming election, it is estimated, is going to cost--and let us count it--$265 million. Apparently this is an increase over the cost of the last two unnecessary elections, elections that were totally unnecessary in terms of their timing.

The federal Liberals went from 1993 to 1997 and unnecessarily called that election and then to 2000 and unnecessarily called that election. Now, because of the Liberal game-playing over the leadership issue for this new Prime Minister of the Liberals, the “all new federal Liberal Party”, I must say, we are into another three year cycle. We have had at least $250 million spent on unnecessary elections in the cycle of the federal Liberal Party, to which I say shame on them.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Athabasca.

I have listened to the debate today and it has been quite informative to watch the Liberals hoist with their own petard. They have been saying that this would totally revolutionize this place, that somehow we would come under the spell of George Bush and his terrible hordes from the United States, that truly the marines would come.

I can advise the federal Liberals that it has not happened to Gordon Campbell. Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia, decided to do what was in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. He took the initiative for the people of British Columbia that we have been proposing for the people of Canada. He actually set a fixed election date. The sky did not fall. The troops did not come in from Port Angeles. No, indeed, nobody particularly paid any attention.

To suggest that what the Conservative Party motion is recommending, setting a fixed election date in Canada, would somehow be totally revolutionary, that it would end our British parliamentary system and all of the affects of our British parliamentary system, is specious on the part of the Liberals.

We do recognize, at least I recognize, that there would be some substantial changes. A couple of the changes would lie in the area of a change in the cycle of how politics is done in Canada. By going to a fixed election date means that effectively, the province of British Columbia is in the process of getting ready for and campaigning for the entire legislative cycle of the British Columbia government. It is focused on the fact that it will be going to the people on May 17, 2005.

I also point out that the opposition party in the province of Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative Party, is also proposing a fixed election date.

It is very important to note that as a result of a fixed election date basically what would happen is there would be a loss of advantage to the premier in the case of the provinces, and to the prime minister in the case of Canada. Of course, in the case of a loss of advantage to the Prime Minister, he needs every advantage that he can possibly get.

I should also note that we have a model of success for what is set out in the motion by the official opposition. It did not bring the end of the British parliamentary tradition or system in Australia in the state of New South Wales nor in the state of Victoria.

As a matter of fact, I can report that in Australia, the New South Wales parliament has a fixed four year term. This is going to be earth shattering for my federal Liberal friends on the other side, but the next election will be on Saturday, March 24, 2007. Believe it or not, that has not brought the British parliamentary system to its knees in Australia.

Further, the state of Victoria, with the passage of historic parliamentary and electoral reforms in March 2003, now has four year fixed terms for both houses. The next election will be held on Saturday, November 26, 2006. This is really quite amazing. I do not think its government has fallen, nor has it seen the U.S. marines on its shores.

It is just a little bit facetious, particularly for some of the members on the other side of the House, to try to indicate that this House would fall, that somehow the British parliamentary system under which we work would be severely damaged and somehow democracy simply would not work.

In fact, we could listen to another Liberal, a person who has been referred to a couple times in the debate today, our friend Mr. Tom Kent. I will repeat what he said in January of this year.

He said:

The fount of authority is the prime minister's power to dissolve Parliament when he chooses--a fearsome discipline over his own party. The even greater offence to democracy is that other parties are put at a serious disadvantage, as they cannot be sure when and on what issue or pretext an election will be called. Will [the Prime Minister] free Parliament from arbitrary dissolution? That would indeed shift the balance of power, away from the “command-and-control systems of central authority” and toward a democracy that better reflects “the views of citizens and communities”.

That is what Tom Kent said and it is what we say. I submit that is what a majority of Canadians, who are sick and tired of being held hostage by the Prime Minister in setting the election date, would also say.

There are certain efficiencies that would occur, recognizing that there are certain costs and indeed other consequences that would flow from setting a fixed election date.

As I alluded to a couple of minutes ago, when we go through a life of a Parliament there is a phase when the government basically does all the housecleaning, does all the bad things that need to happen in the first year.

In the second year, the government tinkers around and makes sure things get repaired, that they are in better repair. The government is still working at correcting the situation.

Normally in the third year the government starts the process of putting things back together so it appears to be a lot better to the electorate.

In the fourth year, as in the case of the present federal Liberal government, it has been doling out about $1 billion in lollies to constituencies it is concerned about possibly losing.

That is the normal cycle. Unfortunately it is a cynical description of the cycle, but that is the normal cycle of events.

The difference with the present government, with the party that will be going for its fourth term at some time we know not when, in the first three incarnations, in 1993 then prime minister Jean Chrétien came to office with all sorts of ideas about how he would correct things and how things would be far more responsive.

We then arrived at a point when in his best judgment it was in the interests of himself and of the federal Liberals to not wait until the fourth year. Instead he got on with doling out all the lolly and then he went to the people in 1997 for absolutely no good reason. In 2000, after only three years in office, the government went back to the people of Canada for another mandate.

Then there was the Liberal leadership shemozzle. From that we have the incarnation of the new Prime Minister who now says, “Gee, maybe I will have an election, or maybe I will not have an election”.

What that is all about is the federal Liberal Party has had its hand caught in the cookie jar over the ad scam scandal. As a consequence, the Prime Minister is now choosing to delay and effectively hold the people of Canada ransom while he takes a look at all the opinion polls. This is a shameful way for any new prime minister who continues to lead the tired, old federal Liberals to treat the people of Canada.

Let us look at what this means in the actual election cycle. I am going to run again to hopefully succeed myself in the riding of Kootenay--Columbia.

Kootenay--Columbia is a very large riding. I am fortunate to have 1,200 members in my constituency organization, most of whom are very dedicated, hardworking people. They are completely committed to keeping the representation in this Chamber from that constituency in the hands of a party and a party representative who will take the information from the constituency and bring it to this place. They are prepared to work.

But we do not know if or when there is going to be an election. As a consequence, what do we do about headquarters as far as having a campaign office is concerned? What do we do about installing telephones? What do we do about acquiring printing and signs? There are all sorts of things involved in the election process.

This is true not only for me. Amazingly, it is also true for the federal Liberals who have been selected by their party and will be running. Their members are in exactly the same bind of trying to figure out whether or not to take summer holidays or whether they should have a coffee party or a barbecue.

What kind of efficiency does this create for people in Canada who are very interested in the democratic process but who do not get involved? This kind of shilly-shallying and sidestepping by the current Prime Minister effectively means that Canadians who would normally be interested in becoming involved in the electoral process are not getting involved. They are saying, “I don't know what's going to happen and I don't know when it's going to happen”, and it leads to the level of cynicism that only this kind of game-playing by the Prime Minister and by the federal Liberals can actually generate--