Jim Abbott

[Elections, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I had the privilege of meeting hundreds of my constituents at the Cranbrook Trade Fair. It was very gratifying to get their positive response to me and to our new party but members should have heard what they had to say about the federal Liberals.

They cannot believe the way the Liberals squander taxpayers' hard-earned income. Incompetence, arrogance, waste and downright criminality are only what I can repeat in the House. However the number one issue on their hit parade, and I mean hit parade, was the breathtaking conceit of the Prime Minister as he toys with setting an election date. This is in stark contrast to the leader of the Conservative Party who is committed to establishing fixed election dates, thereby putting Canadians and Canadian interests first and foremost.

Canadians are truly in tune with what we are saying: demand better, vote Conservative.

[Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest that the member said that she was asking for the support of the House. I think she would know that in the vote last evening indeed there was overwhelming support for this bill.

Therefore, could she help me understand if there is some kind of strategy that her government is presently undertaking with respect to this debate that perhaps she could enlighten us on? I do not know if it is correct or not, but I should mention that I believe we have some people even in this chamber who are watching us who are very interested in seeing this bill go ahead.

What we find perplexing is that in spite of the overwhelming support of the House for this bill, the fact that there is very limited opposition and indeed any of those issues have been fully vented in the course of this debate, that the government continues to filibuster its own bill. We are rather confused about that, particularly when I for one happen to agree with the member that we should be getting on with the business of the House.

Would it have anything to do with the fact that the Prime Minister and the government are not prepared to govern at this particular point? For example, let us look at the other bills that will immediately follow this bill should debate collapse. Bill C-10, the marijuana bill, is at third reading, which means that we could have a debate on that and get that through. Bill C-11, the Westbank bill, certainly is one that we could dispose of right now. Bill C-12, child protection, is a bill that is at third reading and could be disposed of fairly quickly. Bill C-15 concerns the transfer of offenders.

The House is trying to get these bills through. Indeed in ordinary procedure one would have the opposition trying to stop things, or the opposition trying to bring forward particular points of view, which is just fine. That is what the parliamentary process is about.

Considering that the Liberals' legislative cupboard is completely bare as a result of the Prime Minister having no idea of where he wants to take Canada, is that the reason, in the judgment of the member, she herself, unimaginably, would actually be part of the filibuster of this very important bill that the people of Westbank want to go ahead?

[Rail Tourism, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, waterfalls, glacier cut gorges, forests and spectacular mountain terrain makes my constituency of Kootenay--Columbia a natural magnet for national and international tourism. Add the excitement of rail travel found all around us from Vancouver to Alberta and the U.S. northwest to Montana.

Last week I held meetings with constituents, representatives of Rocky Mountaineer Railtours and local rail proponents to discuss enhancing rail travel and tourism. Rocky Mountaineer Railtours has had 15 years of great success and hundreds of thousands of excited, satisfied clients.

Throughout my tenure as MP for Kootenay--Columbia, I have remained in touch with Rocky Mountaineer Railtour executives, working to describe our constituency's suitability for rail tourism and all the benefits it would bring to bolster our employment and economy.

I applaud and support all the rail travel proponents who are working diligently on this initiative which will benefit my constituents and show the world spectacular Kootenay--Columbia.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition to present on a rather interesting topic dealing with electronic locating transmitter signals that indicate an emergency position with a response beacon.

This petition has been signed by 63 people from my constituency. The petitioners point out that it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport to act quickly on this. It would end up saving literally millions of dollars a year in trying to locate downed private aircraft.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents dealing with the same topic.

The petitioners say that marriage is the best foundation for families in the raising of children, and that marriage, the union between a man and woman, is being challenged. The petitioners pray that legislation be brought into effect to reaffirm that it be defined as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others.

[Petitions, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 265 Canadians. Whereas a recent court decision has redefined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, whereas we regard it as a dangerous precedent for democracy in Canada when appointed judges rather than elected members of Parliament create law for our land, they ask Parliament to reaffirm now, as it did in 1999, its commitment to preserve marriage as specifically the union of one man and one woman only.

[Democratic Deficit, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada says that he is going to cure what he calls a democratic deficit. He tells us that he is going to give a voice to his Liberal backbenchers and allow them to vote on behalf of the wishes, desires and direction of their constituents.

Kootenay--Columbia residents know that as their member of Parliament for three terms I have constantly worked to represent their views in this chamber. I have been encouraged and directed by our party policy to give my constituents a voice. I am free to vote according to the wishes of the constituents of Kootenay--Columbia.

Let us contrast that with the Liberals. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister made a big deal about free votes for the Liberal backbenchers. Less than 24 hours later he flipped again and said no free vote on the gun registry. The appearance of the Prime Minister's promise is like a puff of gun smoke. Now we see it, now we don't.

The Prime Minister has extinguished the freedom of Liberal backbenchers and their ability to truly represent their constituents. So much for the PM's cure for the democratic deficit.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

My friend, the former House leader, asks what difference that makes. The difference is that this has never been done before, where a brand new Prime Minister, particularly one who goes out of his way to tell us that he is the all new detergent that is going to wash everything clean, actually has turned around and gone back into the grab bag.

I can understand that this has been a practice of the Liberals where they have allowed themselves to go back to where they were prior to the end of the session but it has never ever happened in the history of British parliamentary tradition that a new prime minister has gone after the old prime minister's legislation.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me this chance to explain. Apparently he does not understand that in every one of the other instances that he cited it was the same prime minister and the same government.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Peace River is absolutely correct. This all new Prime Minister, as he likes to fashion himself, is basically going back into the old. He clearly does not have any new ideas. He is just recycling. The only thing that he is going after, in terms of new ideas, are ones that he takes from us or, in some instances, from the NDP.

He is not particularly proud of where he gets his ideas but the interesting thing is, whether it is an NDP idea or a Conservative idea, he does not understand the idea anyway. It just sounds like a really good sound bite so he turns around and does whatever he is going to do. In particular, as my friend from Peace River has so eloquently pointed out, it is basically regurgitating all the stuff from the former prime minister that is still stuck in the system.

I should point out that it is particularly stuck in the system because of the rather questionable tactics that he used within the party in order to overpower Jean Chrétien. By doing that, there ended up being warfare in the other place where the House leader for the Liberals could not even keep control, could not even get the legislation through, not of the Conservative senators but of the Liberal senators. She could not even keep the Liberal senators on side because the Prime Minister had sowed such tremendous seeds of discontent, backbiting and fighting within the Liberal Party. It has been quite a show.