Jim Abbott

[Ethics Counsellor, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Shawinigate, the ethics counsellor has shown his love of travel. As a matter of fact, other than Canada, he has visited 22 countries in the last three years, all at taxpayer expense.

Could the minister explain how the ethics counsellor can find many international destinations but does not seem to be able to find the Prime Minister's riding in Quebec?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and again, we would have a fundamental difference of opinion on this issue.

We must have trade rules because trade constitutes 50% of Canada's $900 billion a year gross domestic product. Interestingly, NAFTA covers 80% of that 50%. In other words, we are talking about almost $400 billion a year in gross domestic product which is generated by Canadian workers and industry. Therefore because we have NAFTA, we have been able, going back about five years, to dig our way out of the deep recession in which we found ourselves.

The difference of opinion that I have with my friend in the NDP is that on balance, although there are exceptions, I believe that with the trade rules we presently have, NAFTA has been a net benefit to Canada in all of the areas the hon. member is talking about. I am not inclined to believe that we are any poorer in environmental standards, labour standards or in any other area. On balance, I believe we are ahead of the game as a result of the negotiation of NAFTA.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after almost eight hours of debate and coming up to 2.20 in the morning, it is very interesting that there are still members in the House who are really interested in contributing to the debate, myself being one of them.

We may ask what new we can talk about, there having been eight hours of debate. We are debating the issue of the meeting in Quebec, the summit of the Americas. I would like to approach it from a tack that is slightly different to what I have been hearing over the last couple of hours. I will approach it from the point of view of us ensuring that we maintain a civil society, that we maintain civility within not only Canadian society but indeed within all societies of all the countries that will be represented at the conference.

Unfortunately, a couple of years ago in Seattle we saw bullies, goons and anarchists who wanted to shut down debate and discussion. They used thoughtful people. They used protesters who were sincerely and deeply concerned about the issue of free trade and related globalization issues. They used those people as shields.

Therefore we have seen elaborate arrangements for security, in Calgary recently at the petroleum conference and now again for Quebec. It is something that I personally have a lot of difficulty with. I think that in Canada we have a unique situation. For example, in the House of Commons we have one or two RCMP vehicles which are the only visible security on the Hill. We know there is more security behind the scenes, but basically we are doing everything we possibly can to maintain civility and maintain a civil society.

Let me say that I have already mentioned in the House that I have some aggressive fundamental differences of opinion with the members of the NDP who have just spoken. I do not see eye to eye with their concerns at all.

However, that is a right I have and that is a right they have within a civil society. This is what democracy is all about. We have a right to disagree. There are, within the confines of Canada, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who share their perspective, who have the right to disagree.

I would suggest, with respect, that an awful lot of the information they have is built on misunderstanding or misinformation. Certainly the kinds of things that have been talked about do unfortunately breed fear, but I believe what it really comes down to is the fact that there is a fundamental lack of faith on the part of many citizens, not only in Canada but indeed within the hemisphere and perhaps within the world, in the presidents and the prime ministers who are negotiating these agreements. There is a lack of faith in the governments that are negotiating these agreements.

We come to acronyms, which of course are simply abbreviated letters that stand for things. For example, the World Trade Organization is shortened to WTO. The International Monetary Fund is shortened to IMF. We have the FTA, NAFTA and now we have the FTAA, and of course we have the World Bank. We have many of these things, and many Canadians who are concerned about these issues are asking what all these letters stand for, what these acronyms are all about.

I would like to draw their attention, and with respect to my socialist friends at the other end of the House, I would like to draw their attention as well, to what Tony Blair, who is a leading socialist in Europe and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, said in the House not 25 feet away from me. I heard him say:

It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case with force and determination.

That does not change the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in Canada who have a deep and abiding concern about these kinds of negotiations. What is the answer? I would like to humbly propose a solution to the government through the debate today.

I suggest that one of the ways in which we could overcome this fear, this mistrust, would be to, as part of the trade negotiations, actually set up parliamentary associations that would represent parliamentarians from all parties, not only in the House but between the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States, and in all of the countries that are part of this agreement and have government and opposition. Thus, parliamentarians would have an opportunity to be part of an ongoing oversight of the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, World Bank and any of these organizations about which Canadians are concerned.

Why would I be suggesting that? As parliamentarians, we are not in the security bubble that our Prime Minister finds himself in. Unfortunately, because of the malevolent forces that there are in the world, he is by necessity in a security bubble. As a parliamentarian I am in and out of coffee shops, schools and shopping centres. I conduct town hall meetings. I speak in rotary clubs. I meet people on the street. People come by my yard when I am at home on a Saturday and say hi. I am reachable, I am touchable, by the people in my constituency.

Through a parliamentary association, we would have the opportunity to have input. We would have the opportunity to have insight. I suggest we would have the opportunity to build confidence on the part of people who are concerned about these organizations because we would be there and would have part of the oversight.

I happened to be in Valparaiso, Chile in January for the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which is a forum much along the lines of what I am talking about here. There were 26 nations around Asia-Pacific involved in that meeting.

A person in the House, in Canada, who is perhaps noted as being quite outspoken, to put it mildly, would be the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He also was a member of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. He had the opportunity at that forum to go around to the various parliamentary delegations and bring forward a point of view. He received a resolution on the floor that would not have happened had he not been there. That is the kind of access I am suggesting we want to have as parliamentary associations, as ordinary parliamentarians, so parliamentarians would be able to oversee outfits like the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA and the FTAA.

We must have accountability. I believe we have to build trust. We must have the ability to afford Canadians the opportunity to make their views known. In regard to those concerns, those people who want to make those views known have a responsibility to denounce the bullies, the goons and the anarchists who take advantage of them and those demonstrations. However, I also recognize that the thoughtful Canadians who do want to go and who do want to speak out must have a feeling of comfort, therefore my recommendation for a parliamentary association that has an oversight.

I believe that all thoughtful Canadians must be confident in the process. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the idea of parliamentary associations, as part of the ongoing process, to oversee the process would go an awfully long way in taking the steam out of the fear and concern of thoughtful Canadians.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that I have only the highest regard for him as an individual and for his history in parliament. I have been very impressed in the last few weeks with some of his sage wisdom that he has given to parliament.

I will not debate him on the issue that he has just put forward. I have a fundamental disagreement with his thesis. I would like to give him and perhaps the New Democratic Party an opportunity to go on record about a related issue. I sincerely respect the New Democratic Party, particularly this member, and the fact that they have a particular perspective. They want to go to Quebec to make those statements.

I also sincerely respect other thoughtful Canadians who hold to that perspective. I would like to give him the opportunity to make some comment about those who take the credibility of thoughtful people like him and others who want to protest and take it to the anarchistic extreme.

It is unfortunate that the government has had to put up barriers and walls and take other security measures. I would like to give the member and his party the opportunity to say that they want to have the right to democratically attack this summit, that they want the right to demonstrate peacefully and that they want the right to make their statement as forcefully as they possibly can, but that they resent and reject the anarchistic tendencies of some who will be coming with the avowed intention to get up to anarchy and public mischief.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the ethics counsellor is doing a good job of trying to protect the Prime Minister, not his job as ethics counsellor.

The industry minister stated that the name of the Prime Minister was not on the shareholder registry, but it is. So much for trusting that minister. We can no longer trust the words of the Prime Minister. We can no longer trust the words of the industry minister nor of the ethics counsellor.

When will the government call for an independent inquiry into the Grand-Mère mess?

[Ethics Counsellor, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor stated in committee this week that he had seen all the documents, and yet it is clear that he had not seen the most important one, the share registry of the golf course.

Now the ethics counsellor defends his lack of due diligence by saying that he is not an expert in corporate records.

Would the Minister of Industry fire the ethics counsellor, both for misleading the standing committee and for incompetence?

[Transportation, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of money is $600 million over six years, $100 million a year over the entire country, $10 million for the province of British Columbia. This is absolutely pathetic. We know the government spends hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in other provincial projects in conjunction with the provinces, yet this government will not talk to the province of B.C.

Why is it that highway money stops at the B.C. border?

[Transportation, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recently, when it was pointed out to the finance minister that he returns only 3% of the gasoline tax that he takes from British Columbia for the highways, he went on endlessly about everything except the highways.

The transport minister is fully aware of the death trap that the Trans-Canada Highway has become in my constituency, yet the transport minister will not do anything about it. He will not even come to my constituency.

Just when is this government going to get serious and assume its national responsibilities and its share of the Trans-Canada Highway?

[Immigration, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the minister's answer is rather bogus in that her department had issued visas to this gentleman. Not only did the government let Gaetano Amodeo gain safe haven in Canada, but the public works minister's office asked immigration officials if the application would be approved soon.

Why was a cabinet minister helping a mob family establish itself in Canada?

[Immigration, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Antonio Nicaso is an expert on criminal gangs and organized crime. He says Canada has always been a welcome wagon for organized crime, a revolving door that lets anyone in regardless of his or her criminal past.

Gaetano Amodeo is one of the world's most wanted criminals. Why did the immigration department not stop him from entering Canada?