Jim Abbott

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the question of cultural issues and if it is a deal breaker. In other words, I am trying to quantify the level of commitment that the government has to its position with respect to working into every trade agreement proper protection for all countries relative to cultural issues that they consider to be important.

We all know that in a process of negotiations there is give and take and that some things will never, under any circumstances, be removed from the table.

I am trying to understand the position of the government with respect to cultural industries. Is this a deal breaker? In other words, is it the position of the Liberal government that a deal simply will not be cut if the agreement does not include protection for cultural industries?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the question and comment period for a further 10 minutes. This is a very productive time, and I thank the minister for his very forthright answers.

[Independence of the RCMP, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the Bloc member for the motion. As the previous speaker indicated the motion is very timely in light of the fact that we are presently considering Bill C-36. Bill C-36 gives tremendous power, power that in a free and democratic society under normal circumstances we would never, ever consider. It is a bill that is draconian in nature and one that is of deep concern, I am sure, to every member of the House. Therefore this motion is singularly timely.

Let us go back to the events of APEC in 1997. Flowing from those events, the activities of the police and the apparent interference of the Prime Minister and his office, there were two questions. The first question was about the actual conduct of the RCMP. As has been mentioned by the former ombudsman for the province of British Columbia, the member for Vancouver--Quadra, the point is that the public complaints commission established in 1986 indeed was the correct venue to be able to determine what happened, what the activities of the police were and indeed if they were appropriate, but there was an equally pressing second question that the government to this day has never answered. The question is, did the Prime Minister and his office interfere with the RCMP enforcement activities at APEC 1997?

I spent a fair amount of time at the hearings. In listening to the testimony of the people who came before the commission and in seeing the way in which the commission was actually started up, I saw that it was clear that there was the hand of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, even through the public complaints commission, even through commissioner Heafy at the beginning of the public complaints commission process, to ensure that the people of Canada would never, ever receive an adequate or a true answer to the question, did the Prime Minister and his office interfere with the RCMP and its enforcement activities at APEC 1997?

We recall that at the beginning of the public complaints commission process there were three commissioners appointed, a chair and two commissioners, for a total of three people who were involved in that process at the beginning. What was very clear was that there had been interference. There was interference with the original chair of the public complaints commission. He said so himself. There is evidence that there was interference by the head of the public complaints commission, Shirley Heafy, into the process at that time. The question about that has never been answered: Why did she interfere with that process?

Let us fast forward to the end of this process, where commissioner Hughes has come forward with some innuendo, and that is all he can do, about the involvement of the Prime Minister in interfering with the RCMP. Why can he only do it by innuendo? Because that is the way the Liberal government set this up. It was to protect the Prime Minister. It was set up so that the public complaints commissioner himself, Hon. Justice Hughes, was incapable of getting to the bottom of the question of whether the Prime Minister and his office interfered with RCMP enforcement activities at APEC 1997.

Justice Hughes came forward with the portion of his report which has been noted by my Bloc colleague. Now the government says we must make sure that the commissioner and her reporting is unfettered by government interference. It is a little bit thick because in spite of the fact that she uses the words fair, impartial and independent, the fact of the matter is we know that at the beginning of the public complaints commission process she was not fair, impartial or independent because of the way in which the first three commissioners of this ended up crashing and burning.

We can fast forward to section 33.3.1 of Justice Hughes' report. Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP was not standing up for the RCMP. He was being an apologist for the government. He was ignoring the involvement of the Prime Minister and the political aspect of the decisions that were made at APEC.

Colleagues before me gave a very good explanation of why he was doing this and I agree with them. He has to recognize as a top government official, the equivalent to a deputy minister, which side his bread is buttered on.

That is a very harsh thing to say and I am well aware of that. However it is my judgment that the Prime Minister of Canada got away with the fact that he interfered with the RCMP and its enforcement activities at APEC in 1997.

As a matter of principle there must be an absolute barrier between politicians and police in a free democracy. I say that as a politician, but as I take a look at other politicians, particularly people like the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown in positions of authority who can directly influence the police without a clear line of delineation between politicians and police, they can continue to do that.

It is scary that Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, gives so many powers to the police. It tips the balance away from our free and democratic society, the very freedoms we are trying to protect. We are having to set some of those freedoms aside so that we can protect the freedoms we must keep. It is a terrible situation for us as politicians to be in.

I commend the Bloc Quebecois member for her motion. I consider it a crying shame that it has not been permitted to come to a vote. This is an action that the Prime Minister and the government should be bringing to the House, if only for good faith reasons, as part of Bill C-36 so that we would understand that there could never be a breakdown of the barrier between politicians and police.

[Points of Order, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the confusion arising from today's exchange that I had with the Minister of National Revenue, he first said that they were going to be providing guns and then he said they were not going to be providing guns.

I would like you to pay particular attention to the blues and to the television transcription of the event so we can be sure that this confusion is enshrined in Hansard .

[National Security, October 30th, 2001]

That is just outstanding, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe that the minister would even have the audacity to stand up and say that, when we have people at the border trying to protect us and they cannot protect themselves. That is over the top. I cannot believe this minister. What excuse does he have for not allowing them to protect themselves?

[National Security, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government has sidelined 425 of its peace officers by not providing sidearms to the national park wardens. Those people unfortunately, who are ready, willing and able to do their jobs, are sitting on their hands.

Considering that the revenue minister has just announced that the customs officers are going to be receiving firearms, will the heritage minister make the same announcement for the national park wardens?

[Broadcasting Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the 1991 Broadcasting Act will be reviewed and it is about time. Today we have rules to give our musicians exposure on our radios that can disqualify Canadians when they become international stars. We have no incentives for local programming that would build bridges between citizens especially in rural Canada.

We have the CRTC denying access to French language programming in Quebec cable networks if the programs originate outside Quebec. Any review of the Broadcasting Act without a serious examination of the CRTC will be ignoring the elephant in the living room.

When the CRTC was created in 1968 only 13% of Canadian households had cable. Even the writers of Buck Rogers could not have dreamed up the satellites and Internet we use in the 21st century. I am concerned with the committee decision to have minimal time for the CRTC cross-media ownership and resulting convergence issues. The review may be like doing carpentry while wearing boxing gloves.

[The Parliament of Canada Act, October 18th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting topic. Clearly, human beings among all creatures are the ones with the unique ability to communicate and convey emotion. Certainly through poetry we convey emotion.

Poets are artists and just like sculptors, writers of books and songs, other creators and inventors, they play an important role in society and deserve recognition and encouragement. As my Liberal friend has noted, Saskatchewan has gone this route. I apologize but I cannot recall whether she mentioned that Toronto is also looking at the same idea.

We are faced with a particularly unique challenge in this Chamber, indeed if not in the country. Let me be clear. I think one of the strengths of Canada is that we have two official languages, that we express ourselves in French and English. I want to be very clear on that. It represents a unique challenge because poetry is the putting together of words, words in a sequence and words that have a very specific and precise meaning so that we can convey that specific and precise meaning and emotion to each other. As I started off by saying, that is a unique capability we have as human beings.

The difficulty is with the English language. Perhaps my friend who is very fluent en français will understand some of the difficulties we have in English. Because English was invented by people and not computers, it reflects the creativity of the human race, which of course is not a race at all. Let me give the House an example. The bandage was wound around the wound. Two words are spelled the same, are pronounced differently and appear differently in the context of that one sentence.

I have some more examples. The farm was used to produce produce. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse. We must polish the Polish furniture. He could lead if he could get the lead out. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert. Since there was no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present. A bass was painted on the head of a bass drum. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes. I do not object to the object. The insurance was invalid for the invalid. There was a row among the oarsman about how to row. They were too close to the door to close it. The buck does funny things when the does are present. The seamstress and the sewer fell into a sewer line.

I have further examples. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow. The wind was too strong to wind the sail. After a number of injections, my jaw got number. Upon seeing a tear in the painting, I shed a tear. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

I can imagine the poor translators here in the House have had a bit of a time with that, but I think those are examples of the challenge a poet laureate would have.

I have no difficulty with the concept of a poet laureate. My colleagues in my party and indeed my colleagues in the House will have any number of opinions but I have no difficulty with it except that it is a challenge.

For example, let me just include this rather silly part by asking: Why when the stars are out they are visible, but when the lights are out they are invisible? Why when I wind up my watch does it start, but when I wind up this speech it ends?

Those are some of the difficulties we have in English in understanding each other. It is a language in which we live and communicate and perhaps we do not always give deep thought to it. I think that a poet laureate, because of the challenge of the two languages, is going to have quite a monumental task.

As I mentioned, there are many ways of conveying ideas. I have been going over some sayings of people and although the person I am thinking of would not be classified as a poet laureate he said some profound things. He happened to be the president of the United States at one time. Putting words together Abraham Lincoln said:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

These were very thoughtful thoughts of the former president of the United States which he stated in a strong and profound way. This is why I have no difficulty with the concept of a poet laureate.

I have been thinking of people in Canada who might qualify as poet laureates. I was thinking of former finance minister John Crosbie. As I recall, he had a neat poem about Tequila Sheila or something like that. We can apply this whole area of ideas to taxes. Here is a poem about taxes:

Tax his cow, tax his goat, Tax his pants, tax his coat, Tax his crops, tax his work, Tax his ties, tax his shirt. Tax his tractor, tax his mule, Teach him taxes are a rule, Tax his oil, tax his gas, Tax his notes, tax his cash; Tax him good and let him know, After his taxes he has no dough. If he hollers, tax him more; Tax him 'til he's good and sore. Tax his coffin, tax his grave, Tax the sod in which he lays. Put these words upon his tomb: “Taxes drove me to my doom.” And after he's gone, he can't relax; They'll soon be after his Inheritance Tax!

There are any number of ways of expressing ourselves. I have been serious and frivolous but that is one of the beauties of the English language and the way we can communicate with each other.

My inclination with the bill will be subject to understanding exactly how it would all fit together, what kinds of resources would be required for this individual to be able to do his or her job, and, in all seriousness, what we would be able to do about the strength and challenge of Canada having French and English let alone what that challenge would mean to a poet laureate. I would like to understand how that would work. It is not a pejorative question. It is a very real question.

Since we are coming up to November 11 I will conclude my comments with a quick poem which was put together by Rosanna Anselmo, one of my constituents. It is very timely because it is part of a beautiful and haunting song she sings for us in my constituency on Remembrance Day. I will not sing it but these are the words:

We are the Native who dances to the drum. We are the Inuit-- the Metis--Our legacies live on. We are the French--We are the English and languages of many. Let us all bear in mind of what's really meant to be. Let us listen let us hear!

We are the farmer in the field with blistered hands. We are the miner slaving endlessly for riches of this land. We are the lumberjack with saw on back and fishermen at sea. And the multitudes who labour so unselfishly. Ours the hand of need!

Together as one we are a nation. Together as one we are mighty we are strong! A settlement of wondrous creation Canada's where we belong!

We are the children won't you listen to our song. We are young and still learning from those who've lived on. Let the wisdom of our people--who have lived and learned to see, be our eyes into the future of what's really meant to be. Be the eyes that see!

We are many different races--all walking hand-in-hand! A symphony of people--all living on one land! Let our voices blend together--let us sing in harmony! Canada one country--land of unity!

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I address my comments to the member who has just spoken. I know she would agree with me, with the exception from time to time of a partisan outbreak that we saw a few minutes ago, that there is a very sincere effort on the part of herself, myself and the vast majority of members of the House to get on quickly and expeditiously with the bill, that it be proper and balanced, that it get the job done and that the people of Canada be protected by the bill.

Within a democracy, we have a very interesting situation. While we as people are persons and our property is protected by the police, by the same token, within a democracy and free society, we are also protected from the police and unreasonable police action.

Therefore it is very important, as we put together the tools the police will need to work with, the legislation and laws, that we make sure they have a full complement of tools so they do not have to use tools that are not there, in other words, that they do not have to use a screwdriver as a chisel or vice versa.

One of the difficulties expressed by my party and other critics of the legislation is the fact that there is no prohibition within this omnibus bill for membership in a terrorist organization. Because that is missing, it removes the lowest possible threshold for the police to start or continue exploratory activity with respect to possible terrorist connections. In other words, by having a very simple prohibition starting at the lowest possible level the police would then be entitled on the basis of reasonable suspicion to continue to ramp up their investigation.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that when the committee is looking at this it would be very wise to consider seriously and probably include an amendment to the legislation that would include the prohibition of membership in terrorist organizations so that the police have the smallest of the tools, the starting point of the investigation process.

[Grants And Loans, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what the minister and the government are responsible for, not the other part of it.

Let us talk about the federal government's part: $720,000 from HRDC and $925,000 from the BDC, at election time by coincidence. The federal economic development agency lent the hotel $400,000 and gave the adjoining convention centre $658,000. That is $2.7 million. Surely even the minister must take $2.7 million as a serious amount of money to be responsible for.