Jim Abbott

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke just a couple of minutes ago about the feeling of camaraderie we have, but I cannot stay away from thinking about some of the comments a couple of government members, people who are in responsible parliamentary secretary positions, have made. For example, the preceding speaker to the last one talked about the proceeds of crime. He must know that for every dollar collected, it is currently costing the government $1.40. In other words, there is no net gain there.

The other thing is, why has the government been so long, long, long in finally bringing forward a money laundering bill? The government was talking about the Pan-American group and the NORAD group on combating drug trafficking while at the same time there were severe cutbacks to the enforcement capability of the RCMP in the lower mainland of Vancouver, where police cars could not roll, where the RCMP officers could not even use their cellphones.

It just goes on and on. The question is simple and straightforward. I believe everybody in the House is in agreement that this is an excellent initiative. However, I have to ask a government representative, a government member, a parliamentary secretary, if this is such an excellent initiative, and it is, why it took the opposition to bring this initiative to the government for the government to finally get on the stick and start to do something.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief so that my colleagues can also get in a question.

I commend this member. He has faced just a horrific situation personally and at his family level. I wish him and his family all of the best.

In light of the difficulties that he and his family have come up against because of the actions and the aggressiveness of organized crime against him, I wonder if he would agree with me that the government also has to take a look at the whole issue of protecting citizens who are going to come forward and be part of solving the problem with respect to organized crime and that in fact we should really be looking at beefing up the whole issue of our witness protection legislation and witness protection activities.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it just shows that the Liberal member does not understand the connection, CSIS being able to uncover organized crime.

The point I am driving at is that the person who discovered the disk in the telephone booth said that SIRC had not even inquired of them as to the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Would the hon. member agree with me that the government did not even have people at SIRC who were in the position of overseeing CSIS? It was not until September 1999 that it finally appointed Bob Rae, Ray Speaker and Frank McKenna to three of the five positions. It was not until November 15 that it finally got around to appointing, after years of the position being vacant, the inspector general of SIRC.

Would the hon. member agree that it really belies this kind of inaction and the importance of CSIS relative to combating organized crime and getting intelligence?

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the people reading Hansard or viewing this debate will note the collegiality which exists. From time to time in the House we come up with a common objective, a common agenda, and clearly the issue of organized crime in Canada is one that every member of the House should be very serious about.

The member touched on the issue of the lost CSIS briefcase. I think he may agree with me that the problem with respect to the action or inaction on the part of the government is probably best shown by what is or is not going on at CSIS.

In the period of time the government has been in power, in addition to the lost briefcase, there was also the loss of a computer disk which was left in a telephone booth. The solicitor general told us there was a review going on at CSIS by SIRC. We then found out from the same paper that the chair of the SIRC committee, the overseeing committee, was informed of the loss of the briefcase through the newspaper, not by the solicitor general, not by anything kicking in, which should be kicking in, at the department. But then we are told that the computer disk, in the so-called review—

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a copy of a criminal intelligence brief dated June 15. I brought it to the attention of the House in a statement last week. I would just like the hon. member's comments on this.

This is an RCMP criminal intelligence brief on computer crime and national security. It states:

The likelihood of a serious, deliberate and targeted attack to a Canadian critical infrastructure program has increased from low to medium and the impact of such an attack remains at high.

Several government departments dealing with an increasing number of sophisticated attacks, are seeking guidance, support and assistance from law enforcement, only to find there is a lack of skilled and trained resources.

Interestingly, when a reporter asked the RCMP to comment on the release we did of this criminal intelligence brief, it said it was going to move some resources around.

I do not think that is quite the way to do it and I think the hon. member would probably agree with me. Just moving resources around is not the answer. Coming up with new resources and more of a determination on the part of this government is the answer, I believe.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. It is a very interesting bill in the light of the government's position on health care in Canada. There are some very positive aspects to the bill that I find quite supportable, but we have to take a look at it within the context of the government's attitude toward health care spending.

I note that the creation of the CIHR is a direct response by the federal government to the views of health research leaders in Canada who took part in the 1998 national task force on health research. The health minister introduced Bill C-13 and it was given first reading on November 4 of this year. It is to create this institution by April 1 of next year.

As I mentioned there are some good parts to the bill, but I do want to put it into the context of where the government is coming from as far as its commitment to health care spending in Canada. I note that the federal government has allocated a $374 million budget for the first year of operation, that is the year 2000-01. By the end of the second year federal funding will increase to $500 million. I also note a good part is that the estimated administrative cost for the CIHR will consume approximately 4% to 5% of the total budget. The remaining budget will be used directly toward scientific and health research, which is all very commendable within the bill.

However taking a look at it within the context of what the government has done with respect to health care funding, as commendable as the bill is, certainly the government cannot be commended for its actions with respect to supporting health care in Canada.

It loves to throw down the gauntlet for the provinces. The provinces have responsibility under the British North American Act to deliver health care services. They look for ways to get around the billions and billions of dollars in funding cuts that have been imposed on them by the federal government. It throws down the gauntlet in challenge, saying can you not do better than that when in fact it has reduced the amount it contributes to the delivery of health care services in Canada to only 11% of all health care costs. The rest of the costs are borne by the provinces and, to an ever increasing amount, by Canadian citizens.

The fact that the government has reduced its funding of health care in Canada to only 11% of the total health care costs does not seem to stop it from taking a holier than thou approach to the provinces when they are scrambling to try to get around the terrible cuts that have been imposed on them by the federal government.

Going back quite a few years, there was an agreement between the federal government and the provinces under the Canada Health Act that called for a 50:50 split and a sharing of jurisdiction and decision making. It is very interesting, as has been said many times, that the 50:50 split which has reduced down to 11% should by rights reduce the amount of say the government has in it but, no, it continues to carry on as if it were a legitimate funding partner, or at least one prepared to follow through on the commitment to the 50:50 split it made many years ago.

The 1999 budget promised to restore $11.5 billion over the next five years. That was rather interesting. We have talked about $11.5 billion, which is a lot of money, but when we take a look at the fact that it is over the next five years and when we look at the number of Canadians who will be served by the approximate $2.5 billion a year, we see that the numbers the government is now putting back is small peanuts after having gouged and cut $21.5 billion out of that spending envelope since 1993. The $11.5 billion is still $10 billion short of what it has already ripped out of health care.

There are 187,000 Canadians awaiting surgery. The average waiting time is 12 weeks. I think of a close personal friend of mine who suffered two successive industrial accidents at his workplace. He ended up badly tearing the cartilage in both of his knees. First, he tore the cartilage in one knee. Then, being a very conscientious worker, he went back to work perhaps before he should have. He ended up slipping again in a second accident and he could not recover because of the injury to his first knee and darned if he did not rip out his second knee.

My friend has to get around on canes. After six months he is still waiting for proper diagnosis. MRI diagnosis is available to him but he has had to wait six months. My friend is in constant pain when he tries to get up from his chair to come to the door to let me in. It is a major effort for him. The government has a direct responsibility over the fact that he, along with many other people, is having to wait that length of time for simple diagnoses.

The next thing that will happen is that following the diagnosis he will have to wait for whatever procedure is recommended by his physician. It is wait and wait as a result of draconian cuts by the federal government to the transfers that should have by rights gone to the provinces.

Coming back to Bill C-13, while it appears on the surface to be another bureaucratic creation it does have some very strong redeeming values. One of the strongest redeeming values is that it gives an opportunity for young, bright, Canadian researchers to continue to be employed in Canada. Perhaps even more of them can be employed in Canada. This speaks to the issue of what our party has consistently been referring to as the brain drain from Canada.

The bill goes in its own positive direction relative to slowing down the flow of the brain drain, but because of the overbloated bureaucracy in Canada and a lack of spending on the part of the government relative to health care these people have been squeezed. It also has an awful lot to do with the taxes young, bright researchers will have to pay.

As I was flying in this morning I was interested in chatting with a Canadian citizen formerly living in the Niagara area. She is an engineer who is now working in Detroit. She wants to be as close to Canada as she can be because her family still resides here. She had to go to Detroit not only to get a job but once she got there she found the difference in her after tax income to be so profound she did not feel there was any way she could now come back to Canada in spite of the fact that she wanted to come back.

The Liberals are sending a kind of mixed message. Whether we are talking about the amount of money they have ripped out of health care spending, about the amount of money they are continuing to spend on bureaucracies, or about the tax issue, people feel they have to end up leaving Canada.

There are some very redeeming parts to Bill C-13. There are some concerns such as the fact they have budgeted only 4% to 5% of the total budget to be spent on administrative costs. However, given the wide scope of the mandate, will they be able to stay within that 4% to 5% range?

This is one time when I suppose we need to have some faith in the government that the arm's length relationship which will be set up within this new function will work. In the long term, rather than working within this good envelope it has to take a far broader perspective and a far broader look at the way it is killing health care in Canada.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to speak to Bill C-8, the marine conservation act, particularly in light of the motions put forward by the Bloc, which would delete all clauses of the bill. It is interesting because of what I perceive to be contained within the bill. Quite frankly, we will be supporting the Bloc's amendment to stall or stop this bill.

When we look at most government legislation that comes forward, we see an enlargement of ministers' jurisdiction. The enlargement of ministers' jurisdiction can be done in a tremendous number of ways. We see it even within my own constituency, within the four mountain parks, two of which are in my constituency and two of which are in the Wild Rose constituency. We see an action that is presently taking place where the minister has chosen, through the Canada Gazette , effective November 6, to take over 90% of the hectares under park jurisdiction and basically remove them from the parks, which are for the enjoyment of the citizens of Canada and visitors.

This goes to the whole issue of Bill C-8, the marine conservation act. If we take a look at the sensible reasons for the government wanting to bring this bill forward and put them up against the actions it is presently taking with respect to the parks under Parks Canada jurisdiction, we get an idea of where this bill could take us.

I was interested in many of the comments made by members of the Bloc Quebecois. I reject outright their assertion that this takes jurisdiction away from their province. However, I reflect upon the comments of the previous speaker who talked about the fact that basically this is not a bill that is reflective of the needs or the requirements of the park, it is a preservationist bill.

There is always a dynamic tension in Parks Canada, in particular with anything having to do with the environment, between people being able to enjoy certain activities within the confines of the park and the preservation issue because we are attempting to preserve the park for future generations. Indeed, this is a dynamic balance that is ongoing.

However, we see what happens when special interest groups catch the ear of the current minister. She ends up reacting to special interest groups that, in my judgment, are detrimental to where Parks Canada is going and certainly detrimental to the enjoyment of the parks.

I can recall one interesting squabble I had with the minister when I was heritage critic over the issue of the airstrip in Banff National Park. The airstrip was being used by a local flying club, but it was there almost exclusively and primarily for the use of people in an emergency situation. We had an ongoing verbal battle over this issue.

I was trying to drive home the fact that the airstrip was located within those very high mountains at the confluence of three valleys where there can be a lot of turbulence and a lot of changes in the weather. A small aircraft can fly from one valley, say from the direction of Calgary, over the airstrip and proceed up toward the Continental Divide. It can run into a wall of weather, turn around in the valley and attempt to come back, only to find that both the valley out toward Lake Minnewanka and the valley out toward Calgary are all blocked in. What does the pilot do?

I recall that the minister seemed to be not prepared to take the issue of safety for small planes seriously and was very concerned about the fact that perhaps I was attempting to keep the airstrip open so that the local flying club could have the pad, which of course I was not.

It is interesting that after she had gazetted that the airstrip was going to be closed, a parks crew flew in the area and exactly what I just said happened. Those people flew over the strip. They were on some kind of a survey for elk or something. They ran into a wall of weather toward the B.C. border. They turned around, only to find that they could not go anywhere. They had to use the strip for an emergency landing. Guess what? The strip remains open as a result of that near miss.

It is that kind of interference that is of deep concern to me when I look at Bill C-8, the marine conservation act, and realize that there is the very real potential, on the basis of the history of the current minister, that decisions could be made from Hamilton or from Ottawa that would not really take into account the needs of the affected area.

I mentioned the business of gazetting. As of November 6 of this year, it is my understanding that under an order in council, in the Canada Gazette , the minister has said that over 90% of the land within the four mountain parks will be set aside as a preserve. Anybody wishing to go into that area will require a permit to do so. Anybody with an ounce of common sense recognizes that Banff in particular, probably of all the parks in the world, is under the greatest environmental stress as a result of its popularity. We can clearly understand the difficulty that is created when there are horses travelling on back trails, as well as motor bikes tearing up the trails. The hooves of horses tear up the trails as well.

All of those issues are part of the mix. The minister simply exerts the power she has under the current parks legislation, which will be reflected and enhanced in Bill C-8. For her to simply go ahead and take such action is mind boggling. The continued enjoyment and intelligent use of that parkland by human beings that will be stopped as a result of that decision.

There have been consultations in the current situation and I am sure there will be consultations in future situations if this bill comes into effect. I have accused Parks Canada of not understanding what the word consultation means. The word consultation, in my judgment, particularly by this minister, is to say that it is a fait accompli, it is an information session and not actual consultation per se.

The intent of Bill C-8 is good and laudable. I understand that. Nonetheless, on the basis of the history that I and my constituents have experienced with the current Parks Canada legislation, particularly with respect to the four mountain parks, this bill is not workable and is dangerous from the perspective of the continued intelligent use and enjoyment of our parks by the people of Canada.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am reading from a criminal intelligence brief dated June 15, put out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the issue of computer crime and national security.

The top four highlights are, first, that the likelihood of a serious, deliberate and targeted attack to a Canadian critical infrastructure system has increased from low to medium and the impact of such an attack remains high; second, that Canada is lagging behind other information intensive countries in the area of co-ordinated information protection; third, that several government departments dealing with an increasing number of sophisticated attacks are seeking guidance, support and assistance from law enforcement agencies, only to find there is a lack of skilled and trained resources; and, fourth, that critical network systems and systems control are the Achilles heel of the nation's information infrastructure.

This criminal intelligence brief is a damning indictment of the inaction of the Liberal government and the solicitor general.

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that one of the most chilling aspects of the story this morning about the loss of the disk is the fact that the person who found the disk had a sense of responsibility and did not sell the disk or turn the disk over to the people who were named in the disk. This sense of responsibility is his, which is more than I can say for the solicitor general.

How can Canadians have any sense of comfort or any sense that the minister has a feeling of responsibility for the lives of those who turn over their lives to CSIS, or to the RCMP in these confidences?

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of information being out of control in the solicitor general's department is not new.

It goes back to Progressive Conservative Doug Lewis losing boxes of information from CSIS following the 1993 election. It also has to do with the minister's predecessor on the APEC affair talking too much, and then this minister ending up losing documents from the back seat of a car.

How can Canadians have any confidence in this minister or his ministry that their lives will be protected?