Jim Abbott

[Human Resources Development, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is up to his ears in alligators over the HRDC issue. There are investigations going on in North Bay and in Shawinigan as a result of the HRDC grant handouts. An associate is being investigated for illegal lobbying of grants. Now, of course, he is invited to the APEC commission for an interview.

The Prime Minister creates a shroud of suspicion on every file he touches. Is that why he does not hold the HRDC minister accountable, or is she simply following the leader?

[Apec Inquiry, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday at the APEC hearing in Vancouver, Commissioner Hughes invited the Prime Minister to appear to give testimony. Without the Prime Minister's testimony there will be a cloud of suspicion in the mind of the public that will taint the findings of the commission.

To this point the commission has spent between $3 million and $4 million. Canadians understandably are asking why. The answer is the public complaints commission was chosen by the PM's office as a vehicle to bury the Prime Minister's complicity in denying Canadians freedom of expression.

The Prime Minister does not understand the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. In a dictatorship the executive directs the enforcers. In a democracy there is a firewall separating the executive from the enforcers.

This issue is about the freedoms that we cherish in this great nation of Canada. The Prime Minister fails to understand this fundamental concept. Will the Prime Minister attend the public complaints commission and be answerable to Canadians?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the House of Commons deals with very many important issues that are fundamental to the lives of every citizen in Canada. There is no issue more important than the very basis of our society, our family and our family units. Any society in the world is no stronger than its smallest unit. Unfortunately legislation frequently chips away at the ability of Canadians to organize themselves in a way to enhance their family unit.

Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, would amend 68 federal laws, affecting key departments and agencies. The bill creates a new term called common law partner, defined as a person cohabiting with another person of either sex in a conjugal relationship for a year. Probably the most massive flaw with this legislation is that the word conjugal is undefined.

The government wants us to believe that this bill merely gives same sex couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. Mainstream news media parrot the same line. The definitions of spouse and marriage have been under aggressive attack for many years. The courts have asked politicians, elected by Canadians, to express the opinions of Canadians in law. In 1995, one member of the Supreme Court Canada, Mr. Justice La Forest, said:

The heterosexual relationship is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate. Most children are the products of these relationships, and they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underline the traditional marriage.

In June 1998, in the wake of court actions chipping away at the definition of marriage, members of parliament voted 216 to 55 in support of a motion which stated that “marriage is and should remain the union of a man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada”. Bill C-23 violates both the letter and the spirit of that motion, in spite of the fact that it was passed overwhelmingly by members of parliament.

The justice minister stated during the debate: “We on this side of the House of Commons agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. Indeed, worldwide it plays an important part in all society, second only to the fundamental importance of family”.

As noted by the justice minister, every society in the world, whether based on religious or non-religious standards, holds the uniqueness of the heterosexual relationship and the family unit in a unique and special position. There are social benefits extended by every nation relating to the traditional family unit.

Going into the 21st century it must be recognized that there are many single parent families, sometimes based on choice, sometimes based on uncontrolled events. This is why Canadian society had decided, along with the rest of the world's nations, to extend special benefits to people in relationships that are similar to heterosexual traditional family units. Rightfully, those benefits are extended to single parents along with family units related by blood, marriage and adoption.

The justice minister has stated that she is proceeding with the legislation because the courts made her do it. Yet in 1995 Justice Gonthier said:

The courts must therefore be wary of second-guessing legislative social policy choices relating to the status, rights and obligations of marriage, a basic institution of our society and intimately related to its fundamental values.

The supreme court has not demanded or even hinted that it wants this widespread, sweeping power which eliminates the special status for heterosexual couples in marriage.

In the last eight years there has been an amazing erosion of legislative support for traditional marriage, and this in spite of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence showing the benefits of traditional marriage to children, adults and society. The government has eliminated any incentive under family law to marry. The erosion has been led by certain politicians.

For example, in 1994, when the member for Mississauga West was a provincial MPP in Ontario, he said this about similar Ontario legislation:

Some of us who are opposed to this bill find it difficult to accept the lecturing that seems to go that if you are opposed to the bill you are somehow opposed to democracy. I have just had it up to here with being called a racist or a bigot because I cannot accept the fact that the spouse is a member of the same sex. That is my right, indeed my responsibility. I have an obligation on the part of the people I represent and on the part of my family, from (the) heart, (to) speak my mind on this issue. I reject any attempt to try and muzzle people or try to intimidate us to try and paint this as some kind of human rights issue.

In a spectacular flip-flop the hon. member for Mississauga West this month stood in his place and made what amounted to a full retreat, wherein he labelled myself and other members of the Reform Party as he had been labelled six years ago. He attacks us in the way he had been attacked. What monumental hypocrisy.

The Liberal House leader, who is ramming this legislation through the House today, in 1994 said:

I object to any suggestion that would have homosexual couples treated the same way as heterosexual couples. Although I will fight against any form of discrimination whether it is on the basis of race, sex, religion or other, I do not believe homosexuals should be treated as families.

This was the government House leader speaking six years ago. He continued:

My wife Maryanne and I do not claim we are homosexual. Why should homosexuals pretend they form a family?

Five and a half years later, as House leader, he is the enforcer of the Prime Minister's iron fist to all Liberal backbenchers that they support this motion.

Specifically to the case of benefits, when the current health minister was Minister of Justice in 1996 he said:

—that in the year since March 1994 the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited, the benefits do not automatically flow; so much for logic and that is the law.

Four years ago the Liberal Government of Canada clearly stated that it did not support an extension to same sex partners of pension benefits and other benefits, yet here we are today with the government speeding legislation through the House of Commons which will do exactly that.

The protection of the traditional family unit is so important to our society that the definition of marriage must be protected by legislation. The spectacular flip-flops of Liberal cabinet ministers and backbenchers now that they are in power cries out for consistent legislation and specific direction for our courts.

This is fundamental to the lives of every citizen in Canada. In spite of the feel good, fuzzy reasoning by Liberal backbenchers today, the effect of this bill is to depreciate the unique value and special meaning of marriage in Canada. Any society in the world is no stronger than its smallest unit, the family. Bill C-23 not only undercuts marriage and the family, it is just plain bad law.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw the word lie because it is.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of question period the HRDC minister answered a question by saying that I had been in contact with her office and that I had been pushing for grants to be going to my constituency. That is a lie.

[Criminal Records Act, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a very enlightening meeting with about 200 young people who are here with Encounters with Canada. They were asking very reasonable questions, having just spent some time in the Speaker's gallery watching question period, such as what in the world is going on. Why is there so much hostility? Why are we always going at each other?

It therefore gives me a tremendous deal of pleasure to speak very briefly to this bill and just recount how we arrived at this point. The bill and the co-operation there has been within the House of Commons among members of parliament are examples of some of the good legislation that we can work together on, that we can co-operate on.

I give special acknowledgement to my colleague from Calgary Centre who entered the House in 1997. He became the critic for the Reform Party responsible for issues surrounding families. He arrived without any parliamentary experience and very quickly studied and came forward with a very useful piece of legislation not dissimilar to this one. As a matter of fact, I suggest in a spirit of co-operation with the government that perhaps it was a catalyst on the part of my colleague from Calgary Centre that this legislation saw the light of day.

It went through the Private Members' Business process and was referred to committee following second reading. The solicitor general's department came forward with legislation that was very similar to my colleague's bill. Again, through a spirit of co-operation in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, an agreement was struck to co-operate and ensure that the same process being used for the solicitor general's bill would be used for the private member's bill, while negotiations went on behind the scenes to try to blend these two together.

It is not infrequent for members of my party and perhaps some Canadians to have nothing complimentary to say about the other place, but today I will say something complimentary. The other place is part of the Canadian government and the government process as it presently stands in Canada, and whether we have questions about that or not is irrelevant. It is there and it does a do its job with this bill. I think it made improvements to the bill which has now been referred to us here.

This shows the kind of work that can happen when there is unanimity and agreement on vital issues such as this. This shows that even when a bill like this comes forward from an opposition member, my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, that the House can respond in a positive way to his initiative.

It would be unseemly for me to take any partisan shots at this point in talking about the actions behind the scenes and the negotiations that took place. The bottom line to this exercise is that everyone in the process should be complimented for having seen it come to this point, and that the protection of children in Canada will be stronger as a result of this. As I said, I particularly want to acknowledge the tremendous hard work, dedication, perseverance and foresight of my colleague from Calgary Centre.

[Human Resources Development, February 14th, 2000]

A six point plan.

[Petitions, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have in hand 400 pages with approximately 10,000 signatures to add to the hundreds of thousands of signatures of Canadians who are horrified by pornography which depicts children.

They are astounded by the legal determination that possession of such pornography is not criminal. It is amazing to me to see how these petitions keep on coming.

[Points Of Order, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Del Hoffman and his wife Bev were killed in northern Mexico this week by four American bank robbers. The semi-retired couple were vacationing in Mexico. They were brutally murdered for their RV, credit cards and cash. The generous couple were also carrying clothing and bicycles for poor Mexican children.

Both Del and Bev were big-hearted loving people and their warmth was infectious. Their family and friends are devastated.

On behalf of my constituency and my colleagues in the House, I offer our deepest sympathy. Bev and Del Hoffman will be greatly missed.

[National Security, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the solicitor general critic for Her Majesty's Official Opposition I find it very interesting to listen to the solicitor general's report to the House.

He reported on December 3, 1998. At that time I said that criminals involved in organized crime have successfully landed in Canada without any opposition due to our lax immigration policy and inadequate screening. Organized crime with foreign origins poses a serious threat in many metropolitan areas of Canada, particularly on the west coast.

The danger imposed by modern day organized crime is a serious and destructive force. It imperils the security of our citizens and our nation. This threat attacks us on our streets, in our businesses and in our schoolyards. Organized crime is a threat to our economic sovereignty because the cost of organized crime in our society is astronomical.

The counterattack will require additional resources, legislation and co-operation provincially, federally and internationally. Canada cannot afford the continuing lip service the government is providing to the problem. We need resources. We need action. We need it now. Canadians will feel safe and confident only when these resources are committed to this attack. Crime is organized. So should government efforts be.

Those were my words exactly a year ago. Unfortunately the words of the solicitor general today belie what has happened in the intervening period of time. We have discovered in the intervening year that in the early 1990s there was a compromise of CAIPS, the computer system in our Hong Kong office. This led to very free access to organized crime to be able to move its people into our society.

There was an RCMP review of the compromise of the CAIPS system which led to the Sidewinder project, a joint project of CSIS and the RCMP. That project was making strong headway during the mid-1990s, right up to the point when CSIS decided not only to shut it down but to shred every piece of information that was in the project.

Corporal Robert Read, whom I brought to the attention of the solicitor general repeatedly in the House, did a review of the review of the project and arrived at some very bad conclusions. We also understand that in 1996 CSIS lost a disk of very highly classified information in a phone booth. SIRC did the review the solicitor general has referred to in the House but interestingly the person who found the disk was never interviewed by SIRC.

This year there was a loss of a briefcase by one of the operatives of CSIS. The CSIS director informed the solicitor general but the solicitor general, in his questionable wisdom, did not inform SIRC that would be responsible for reviewing the entire disastrous affair.

On the legislative front I quote the minister on December 3, 1998 when he said “Early in the new year, 1999, the government will introduce legislation to curb money laundering”.

It did not happen early in 1999. In fact it happened in May 1999, but due to the agenda of the government that legislation ended up dying on the order paper. This vital legislation that was supposed to have been introduced, according to the words of the solicitor general, in early 1999 was finally reintroduced for passage by the House on December 15. December 15, I remind the solicitor general, is not early 1999.

He tells us he is spending $15 million to put 100 officers at international airports. That is terrific except that the province of British Columbia alone has a shortage of 500 members at this point. His $15 million for 100 officers at airports is very shallow.

We have traditions in the House. For example, a meaningful tradition is when the mace is brought into the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, followed by the Speaker. This is to say that the people of Canada have given authority to the House to do something. That is a meaningful tradition. What I am talking about now is a meaningless tradition. The meaningless tradition of this and previous Liberal solicitor generals with statements that are vacuous, meaningless mumblings simply form part of the tradition. Those are my comments.