Jim Abbott

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the second part of her answer.

The CBC did plan to do an investigative piece on CSL and promoted it heavily. It did this in spite of the fact that the former finance minister's handlers over at Earnscliffe had a problem. There was no problem, just a couple of calls from Elly Alboim to his good friend Tony Burman, the editor in chief of CBC News. Suddenly, the story is yanked.

I want to know how CBC journalists can do their jobs when they know that kind of pressure can be applied to their bosses?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are reports today that the CBC pulled a story on Canada Steamship Lines because of pressure from Earnscliffe where much of the former finance minister's leadership team works. The CBC is supposed to be an arm's length agency that is supposed to be immune from this kind of pressure.

I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, what will she do to ensure that leadership candidates cannot just spike stories that they do not like?

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in these most serious of times, Canadians have no comfort in knowing that this Prime Minister cooks up foreign policy the same way one would flip a pancake.

In the January 31 edition of the Charlottetown Guardian , the Prime Minister said, “Resolution 1441 will authorize action” to disarm Saddam Hussein. On Monday of this week, he finally stood up and told the Canadian people that he wanted Canada to wimp out and not support our traditional allies.

Thank goodness he finally took a position on Iraq, but it was based on polls and going down the middle of the road, not on principles. Unbelievably, he made his statement only five hours before he knew that the President of the United States was going on the air, thereby undercutting the president and throwing up more obstacles for our allies. What is most shameful is that he made his statement without even having the common decency to inform the president of Canada's position.

This Prime Minister is leading Canada down a blind alley of mediocrity and irrelevance and I say shame on him.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, out of respect to the House I will withdraw the last words.

Does the minister consider this debate to be irrelevant? We may disagree with the Bloc and we may disagree with the NDP, but at least they are here and are bringing this topic to the floor of the House. The Prime Minister of Canada will not.

I find it appalling for the foreign affairs minister to stand up, when he has a full 20 minutes to express to Canadians what the position of his government is and why, and simply split off his time. I find the arrogance of the Liberals and the arrogance of the government to be absolutely amazing. I just cannot understand it.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I came into this House right now because I was absolutely appalled to find out that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada was splitting his time on this issue. We know that it is parliamentary possible for the minister to give away part of his time, but the Canadian public is looking to this minister to be eloquent and to give us an idea of which end is up. What lessons are we supposed to learn; that he is too lazy to do a proper speech?

[Question No. 151, March 19th, 2003]

For each year from 1993 to 2002, what was the total amount billed to the Department of Canadian Heritage and its Crown corporations and agencies by the Capital Hill Group?

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are beginning to spend time learning about their family history, which is good, but what about our country's history, the sacrifices made by the men and women of the country to ensure we can enjoy a life of freedom and peace?

I have always believed it is significant to understand our history and appreciate those who fought for our country. It became even more meaningful to me during a recent visit last year to Vimy Ridge in France. Standing at this historic site I was overcome with a sense of pride of being Canadian and about the bravery of the soldiers who fought for our freedom. There is a great deal to be learned from Canada's history. When we take the time to sit down with relatives and friends, and ask questions about important events or moments in our past we gain a sense of who we are.

Canadian soldiers fought under British army command during most of the first world war. We had four divisions, but until Vimy the four divisions had never been united. Having achieved a well earned reputation for bravery and intelligence, the four Canadian divisions were brought together to do something that no other army could do, and that was to take Vimy Ridge. Other allied forces had tried for years.

The scarred countryside today is still evidence of the tonnes and tonnes of explosives that were detonated. The opposing trenches were close enough to throw a football back and forth. There are accounts that the soldiers did this on occasion to relieve the boredom, but there are also accounts that a live grenade was sometimes taped to the ball.

The tunnels, 30 feet under the surface, all dug by hand, testified to the gnawing fear that must have been the soldiers' constant companion. The tunnels were narrow so troops could only advance; there was no retreat. The only method of communicating with the front line was by runners who carried written messages. A runner's career averaged just 36 hours from the time he started running to the time he was dead or seriously wounded. Alcohol supplied by the army to dull the pain and twisting fear was an essential part of many soldiers' survival.

None of the world's armies had taken Vimy Ridge. From the ridge the view extends about 10 miles. It became a wall of defence. The war bogged down in the mud, slime, ooze and human pestilence. Canada's generals developed a plan. The soldiers and officers practised for weeks on end with each one having a specific task. Over 30,000 men were scheduled to go over the top, and they did. Canada's army achieved 70% of its objectives in the first 24 hours of the attack. They did in two days what no other army could in two years, something for which we should be justifiably proud.

What about those who did not come back and what about their families? I learned something about my own family on the Vimy visit. I stood where my grandfather had been. He fought in the tunnels and the trenches. He was a hardworking, God-fearing family man, but Grandpa came back from the war a broken man. He fought with the demons of whizzing bullets, alcohol, unspeakable disease, and exploding bombs after the war. He died three years later. This is my family heritage as much as it is our country's heritage.

The memorial at Vimy Ridge stands on top of a hill as Canadian soil. France was so grateful it gave Canada the land as a memorial to the bravery and sacrifice of our Canadian soldiers.

Vimy Ridge is not the only place where we distinguished ourselves. All over the world Canadians are respected for bravery, intelligence and service. As official opposition heritage critic I support memorials and acts of remembrance like this. Canada has a distinguished history in the world.

It struck home last Thursday night as I was watching TVO Studio 2 and it featured four very articulate grade 7 and grade 8 kids. They were discussing whether we should or should not go to Iraq and what should our position be with respect to supporting or not supporting unilateral action of the UN. They had taken the time to inform themselves. They had the privilege of informing themselves because of the sacrifices that have been made by the many brave people who have gone to war for us.

Anybody could have watched TVO that night because we live in a democracy with freedoms. We live in a country where we can say what we will say, do what we will do, and be our own person. We live in a country not only because of the sacrifices of the very brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who have gone to theatres of war, but also because of the sacrifices of their families when they did not come back. Or, as in the unfortunate case of my own family, when a soldier came back a broken person as a result of the war.

Canada is a great nation with a wonderful history. The idea of this day of remembrance of Vimy Ridge is one that I wholeheartedly support because it was turning point in our nation.

In doing a little bit of research on this I discovered that in 1914 Canada went to war without a voice of her own, with a regular army of 3,110 souls and 684 horses, a navy of just 300 men, and an air force consisting of two canvas planes still packed in crates. I am so tempted to make a political comment, but it would be so inappropriate right now. Only 12 regular officers had completed staff college courses.

It is easy to understand the opinion of a German general, writing a military appreciation for supreme command in Berlin, that the colonial Canadians could play no significant part in any European war. The militia, enthusiastic amateurs, given foppish uniforms and quadrilles, were described by Colonel W. Hamilton Merritt, of the Canadian Governor- General's Horse Guards, recently returned from the sharp realities of the South African war, as part of “the most expensive and ineffective military system of any civilized community in the world”.

In 1918, just four years later, incredibly, Canada stood at the spearhead of the thrust into the enemy held territory with her own full corps of 100,000 fighting men under Canadian generals with a combat reputation second to none, and in 1919, walked forward and put her own signature on the Treaty of Versailles.

In that era--it already seems as distant as the Crusades--the majority of Canadians were glad to fight for gallant Belgium and mother England. However, one of the greatest Canadians of all time, Sir Wilfred Laurier, said immediately:

There is in Canada but one mind and one heart... today we realize that Great Britain is at war and that Canada is at war also.

This what Vimy Ridge is about. This is a defining moment of Canada.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to my friend on the Liberal side. As usual he has glossed over the fact that the Liberals keep announcing things, making it sound as though they are actually doing something when in fact they are not.

On national parks the expenditure as outlined in the budget is $74 million. The budget calls for the establishment of 10 new terrestrial parks and five new marine conservation areas. It also talks about the fact that the government will be implementing a plan to take care of the maintenance backlog that is present in the parks.

There is well over $450 million of accrued liability for maintenance in the parks. Roads are falling off mountainsides. Toilets do not flush and when they do, they flush into an inappropriate place. How in the world can the member stand up for the government and say that only $74 million can handle this $450 million program plus establish 10 new parks and five new marine conservation areas? It is never never land once again from the Liberals.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I just listened to my Liberal friend. Saying that we should not become involved in a partisan debate. That rings rather hollow against the comments he was just making. Let that be as it may.

I would like to speak specifically about my own constituency. As you know, Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the people in my constituency, as I am sure you are of yours. In my constituency, the issue of money relative to politics is simply non-existent, because there are people in my constituency, up to 400 people in every election I have been involved in, who have freely contributed to my campaign. These are people who believe in the goals and objectives that I have set on behalf of the Canadian Alliance. These are people who are choosing to support the Canadian Alliance. This is part of democracy.

It has always been my belief that when we involve a person's wallet we somehow have their entire attention. That really is what this is about. Here is what we would be replacing. Instead of the involvement of people like my constituents in my campaigns and in the whole election process in Kootenay--Columbia, instead of them continuing to be involved in the democratic process, it would be the Liberal vision, the NDP vision, the Bloc vision, and we would be replacing their involvement with the involuntary involvement of the Canadian taxpayer, and more's the shame.

My colleague from Crowfoot put it very well, very succinctly and in great detail. I would commend his speech to any readers of Hansard . He outlined in detail where the dollars would be coming from and how the Canadian taxpayer would be paying.

To give an example of how the current system works and how there is a true involvement of Canadians in the process, I would like to give a very succinct history of what has happened, first in Kootenay East, now the renamed Kootenay--Columbia constituency.

Going back to 1992, our constituency organization was solvent. It had a sufficient amount of money in the organization to be able to function. As I have said, the money was coming specifically from people in Kootenay East. As we entered into the Charlottetown accord referendum debate, we were faced with the challenge of requiring more money. We went out with broadsheets, which simply showed in detail what the Charlottetown accord was about. People took a look at those sheets and saw how wrong-headed the NDP was, how wrong-headed the Liberals were and how wrong-headed the Conservatives were in trying to push for the Charlottetown accord. As a consequence, they were motivated to write the cheques. They were involved in the democratic process.

Those same people who wrote the cheques to fight in favour of the no side of the Charlottetown accord were the people who were also putting up the signs and going door to door with these same broadsheets. They were the people who were doing the telephoning for our no campaign. In fact, our no campaign in Kootenay East came in at a vote of 87% no to the Charlottetown accord. I put that down to the involvement of the people in my constituency.

Let me fast forward now to the election of 1993. Again we started the election of 1993 solvent, but just, which is fine. We then went to the people. I had been campaigning at that point, on and off, for a period of about eight months. We went to the people and asked them this: if they believed in what we wanted to do, if they believed that we were going to be changing Canada as we moved into Parliament, as we were drawing the attention of the government to issues like health care, immigration, justice reform and things of that nature, would they contribute? Indeed, over 400 people contributed to my campaign at that time and I was very fortunate in receiving the approval of 49% of the people who voted in the 1993 election.

Following the 1993 election, of course, under the current rules we were in the position of receiving a rebate of 50% of the amount of money that we had spent on election expenses. My constituency organization, being the very sound body that it is, then went to work to decide what we were going to do with that money, how we were going to save the money, put it aside and make sure that it was in existence for the 1997 election.

My constituency organization, along with myself and the president of our constituency organization, were engaged in a process of making sure that we were taking care of, first, of the people's money from our constituency who had contributed to it, and second, the amount of money that had come back from Elections Canada.

We then went into the 1997 election far stronger financially. Again, in the 2000 election we were far stronger financially, where I was fortunate enough that my campaign received 68% of the popular vote. I put that down to the fact that we have people in our constituency who believe in what it is that I am here for and believe that I am here to truly represent them in this place.

What would happen under the proposed bill is that all the hard work, all the savings, all the good management that has occurred on behalf of the people of Kootenay—Columbia, would be set aside. Under this political financing bill, we would be put in the position, along with all Canadian taxpayers, of funding the election expenses of the Bloc Quebecois.

I have nothing against any of the members of the Bloc Quebecois but I totally reject the premise of that party. Why should I and why should my constituents have their tax dollars going to support the Bloc Quebecois?

Some people in my constituency do support the direction of the NDP but the NDP do not share the same political point of view as I do. However, why should the NDP supporters in my constituency end up with their money going to the Canadian Alliance, any more than my supporters of the Canadian Alliance should end up having their money going to the NDP?

It is massive intervention and basically takes away the individual rights and responsibilities of the people of Canada. That is why this is so wrong-headed.

My constituency organization is healthy. In fact, we have well over 1,000 members in my constituency alone. These are people who are active and who are paid up. We have maintained those numbers over a period of time because there is a sense of ownership of what it is that is happening in my constituency and through my office.

In my judgment, the bill, as it presently sits, particularly with the replacement of the voluntary funding to the extent that it is specified and the replacement by tax dollars, is one of the most divisive, negative influences on democracy that I could ever possibly imagine.

What the Liberals are doing is institutionalizing democracy. There is nothing healthy about institutionalized democracy. Grassroots democracy, where Canadians have the opportunity to be involved, is where the strength of our country lies.

I cannot imagine a worse legacy for the Prime Minister than the one that he is bestowing on the people of Canada, which is to take the people of Canada out of the democratic process.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, of course I can only agree, but I think there is a little more to it than that.

It was interesting that when the Alliance House leader rose in the House of Commons to present the motion, he was not immediately met by the House leader of the Liberals. That would be very ordinary. He was met in debate by the foreign affairs minister who interestingly split his time with a backbencher from Durham, which I guess says something about how seriously the Liberals took our motion.

Why, I ask myself, would the House leader of the government not engage in debate with the House leader of the official opposition at that time? Why was there a time lapse between 10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m.? The reason is he was out polling his backbenchers to make sure he could get them on side to vote against this motion.