Jim Abbott

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out earlier today to the defence minister that it has been successive cutbacks, first by the Trudeau government, then by the Conservatives and now by the Liberals, which have created the tremendously desperate situation with respect to resources for the armed forces. He implied that the Reform Party would have cut further and would have done even more damage.

I wonder if my colleague, who is the defence critic, would care to comment on the minister's statement.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and respond to the Speech from the Throne.

Let us look at what the Speech from the Throne said. “The government will work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be safe”. Another point was, “The government will combat drug trafficking”. We looked at that and we thought perhaps an amendment might be in order. The amendment we proposed was “That this government has failed to seriously deal with the problem of drug trafficking, youth crime and child pornography”, which in our judgment is a statement of fact.

While the throne speech was generally imprecise, with fluffy generalities signifying little or nothing, in the case of criminal justice, the government outlined inaccuracies and total distortions of truth.

Let us examine the Liberals' rhetoric against their record. They say, “The government will strengthen the capacity of the RCMP and other agencies to address the threats to public security in Canada and work with enforcement agencies in other countries”. So say the Liberals. That is their rhetoric. Here is their record.

The lead story in the Vancouver Sun two weeks ago puts a lie to their statement. It said, “RCMP halt fraud investigations blaming lack of money and staff. A Kamloops couple complained that they had been duped out of $450,000 U.S. in a stock scheme. Call your MP, the Mounties say”. They did not have to call me and certainly they did not have to call any of the Reform MPs because that is precisely what we have been shouting at the Liberals about for years.

This is a further quote from an RCMP officer in that article, “It is not a message we want to send, but we don't want to give the public a false belief that we will pursue their complaint if we don't have the resources”. That, as I say, was from the head of the RCMP commercial crime section in Vancouver.

It is not just B.C. I have been following a case in Edmonton where investors have been ripped off for $3 million in a stock swindle. They have been waiting three years for the RCMP to complete their investigation and for charges to be brought against the perpetrators of the swindle. The police have evidence coming out of their ears but they simply do not have the resources to get on with their job.

Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Northeast. My apologies.

Jason Cowan and Barb Trosin had an inventive product they wanted to bring to market but as with most entrepreneurs, they required capital. Unfortunately for them as with the case in Kamloops, they fell into the clutches of unscrupulous stock swindlers. Their case also has a Vancouver component where some of their stock was deceptively and fraudulently passed to another unsuspecting investor in a switch which took its inspiration from the Paul Newman movie The Sting . The offices used for the switch involved a well-known Canadian investment firm without the firm having any knowledge of the scam that occurred right at the front desk in its office. Like in the Kamloops story, the RCMP do not have the resources to pursue this obvious criminal fraud.

What about Bre-X, the $6 billion ripped out of investors' pockets and the RCMP already shutting down the investigation? I have a couple of questions.

Why did the RCMP give approval for unsupervised destruction of documents in the Bre-X office in the days immediately following the confirmation of the fraud? The answer seems to be lack of resources.

Why has there been no investigation into the responsibility that Nesbitt Burns had in dispatching their geologist on multiple trips to the mine site in Indonesia? He consistently reported no problems while the firm raked off millions of dollars in brokerage fees, yet within five minutes of an Australian geologist arriving at the mine, he detected serious problems.

The obvious answer is gross under-resourcing of Canada's national police force. Yet the Liberals have the gall to make statements in the throne speech as if they really cared about protecting Canadians. The bottom line is Canadian and international investors can be fleeced by swindlers and due to the government's intentional under-resourcing of the RCMP, our national police force can do nothing about it. The drastic result is that investment capital in Canada is becoming scarce.

I intend to ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to have the commissioner of the RCMP appear and explain his force's actions on the Bre-X file.

Speaking of international concerns and commitments, let me talk about organized crime. This is what the Liberals say. “The government will also continue to work closely with the U.S. to modernize our shared border for the 21st century”. That is what the Liberals say; that is their rhetoric. Here are the results. It is as if they have not had the responsibility of running Canada for the last six years. Wake up and smell the coffee. The government has no vision to lead Canada safely into the 21st century.

In 1998 the United Nations declared transnational crime as its highest priority. Members of the G-8 affirmed that it is one of the major challenges facing the world on the threshold of the 21st century. Organized crime has emerged as the number one threat to Canada's overall security, yet the government has cut the legs out from under Canada's security committee. How? This is how.

Last weekend it was revealed that a top secret planning document was stolen. It was a planning document for next year and to all accounts should never have been removed from CSIS property. Unbelievably, it was in a briefcase in the back of a car in a parking lot in Toronto. The bright light from CSIS was at the Toronto Maple Leafs game. She left the briefcase in the back of her car. Druggies smashed the window, took the case and we were told it was thrown into a dumpster, but we are not sure. If we think a smash and grab drug addict is a reliable source for information, then perhaps we will have no trouble also believing in the tooth fairy.

We also know there has been a serious breach of security in Canada's Hong Kong trade office. What happened? There was a cover-up. When the RCMP officer revealed documents that clearly showed a cover-up, he was suspended. Meanwhile, we have also learned that a special operation to get intelligence about Asian gangs called operation Sidewinder was suspended in 1996.

It was not only suspended but all of the data was removed from electronic storage, including e-mails, and all hard copy was shredded. Why? As a matter of fact, the members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, who are civilians and who oversee Canada's spy agency, learned about the shredding and the turning down of the Sidewinder operation as a result of picking up the newspaper a couple of Fridays ago. They were never told by the solicitor general and never informed by the agents at CSIS.

With that report, we would have information on the people smuggling gangs that hit Canada's west coast this summer. At least we would have a starting point to understand the infiltration into Canadian businesses by organized crime. But, I repeat, the report was shredded. My question is: Why?

Does it have anything to do with the other big story this weekend? That story revolves around the fact that the RCMP and CSIS are having a turf war. They do not share vital information. They investigate each other. There is constant bad blood that inhibits their ability to protect Canadians.

The government delayed and delayed the appointment of civilian oversight for CSIS. For years the spy service of Canada has run without the checks and balances set out in legislation. It has led to an unhealthy culture in CSIS. CSIS exhibited that culture through the director of CSIS when he came before the parliamentary standing committee on justice last May 25.

I fault the Liberal government, the government elected in 1993. The SIRC positions were vacant for years, that is years. There was no proper oversight of Canada's spy agency as a result of a deliberate omission by the Liberal government. All law enforcement and national security agents must, at the very least, be able to maintain the ability to target threats to national security, and the Liberals are badly failing the test.

There has been no strengthening of RCMP resources. Each year the RCMP face more and more challenges as the potential for technological crime increases. Its equipment and resources are rusted while organized crime goes on a buying spree of new technology.

We have just had a very tiny glimpse at the difference between the Liberals' rhetoric and the Liberals' reality. Canadians deserve better from the government. They want the government to resource our people who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining our national police force and our national security. Canadians deserve better than this government.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a lot of bravado that the defence minister is bringing to this debate. It is quite astounding because it has been consecutive Liberal governments that have cut and cut and cut the national defence budget. Now he tells us that everything is fine. Now he tells us that we have his personal commitment that everything is going to be fine, that there are going to be the resources for our very brave men and women.

It is his Prime Minister who said that Canadians really like getting involved in different peace operations because as Canadians we see ourselves as Boy Scouts. Our armed forces need a whole lot more than the equipment of Boy Scouts. In fact, if we look at the shameful way in which this government and its cutbacks have robbed our proud, sincere, dedicated men and women of the resources to get the job done, it is an absolute shame.

I would suggest with as much respect as I can possibly muster to the defence minister that indeed his promises and the promises of his government are exceptionally shallow. His government should be ashamed of itself for the way in which it continues to underfund and under-resource the brave people in the armed forces.

[Rcmp, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the question then is, if serious steps were taken and this is yet another event in the life of this minister in the departments of the solicitor general, why is it that we have yet another case missing from another car? I do not really understand.

The people who put their lives on the line for the minister and his ministries want to know why it is that his ministry acts like a sieve. Why are their names in danger, in public, as a result of his department and his department's inaction?

[Rcmp, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that all of the departments under the solicitor general have serious problems hanging on to their briefcases. We have now learned that the RCMP had information stolen from one of its cars, which put the lives of informants and their sources in grave danger.

It is clear that the minister did not do anything about the CSIS briefcase. Did the minister and his department consider the RCMP stolen briefcase a serious threat to the lives of the informants and what action did he take?

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, prunes come from plums, not from strawberries, so I am having a little difficulty with the mixed metaphor.

It is rather instructive that the member has pointed out that now this payment will be called a payment and not a grant. Whoopee. The title of the thing has been changed. So what? Unemployment insurance is still unemployment insurance. Just because we call it employment insurance does not mean people are any more employed. The wordsmithing that we are into is typical of the kind of window dressing we expect from the Liberal government.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have heard some interventions in my day but that one certainly took the cake.

First, if he takes a look at the blues from my speech the member might find that I made absolutely no comment whatsoever about first nations. I have many things that I would like to say about first nations, not the least of which is that the government has an undemocratic approach to anything to do with first nations. However, that is a topic he raised that was not contained in my speech.

Second, I did not say anything whatsoever about crime, petty crime, and I categorically reject the concept he has proposed that we are fearmongering. It is this government that is turning around and is buying an aircraft for Correction Services Canada to be able to transport a growing number of violent criminals. It is this government that is doing it, not the opposition, but that is another topic I did not talk to.

I did talk about top down big government. There is the golden rule. The golden rule is very simple. He who has the gold rules. The government manages to attract such a sufficient amount of gold that it gets to rule. That is the reality.

The reality is that the parliamentary system has evolved over a period of time both under the Progressive Conservatives and under the Liberals. We now have what is the equivalent of a four year dictatorship where the Prime Minister is elected and then he chooses to turn his back on the responses he is receiving from the people of Canada. He simply directs the people in his backbenches as to when they will stand up and when they will sit down, like a bunch of sheep. This is the reality in Canada.

In terms of the decentralized democracy again that is a myth. The decentralized democracy we are talking about here, the three levels of government the member was talking about and the overlap he was talking about are there in theory. The fact of the matter is that the major power of raising taxes is in the hands of the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

If that were not the case, why were the finance ministers of the provinces coalescing yesterday to try and come up with a joint program to bring to the finance minister? They did it in all good faith. They asked how they could bring this about, what is the common position and how they could co-operate because they have to gang up as best they can against the town bully, namely the Liberal Party which is in power in Ottawa at this particular time.

To suggest that I am demeaning municipalities is a gross misunderstanding and I suggest an intentional misunderstanding on the part of the member for Peterborough.

I was not demeaning municipalities. I was standing here in defence of municipalities, saying that municipalities require a break. Municipalities, if anything, require legislation that would put them on to a proper and equal footing with other levels of government. As I say, right at this moment they happen to be a creature of the provincial government.

In conclusion, what can I say? With that kind of an intervention I can only assume that the member was not listening or is choosing to interpret in his own way my comments, which is unfortunate because I am standing here in support of bringing strength to municipalities and their financing, and this bill will not do it.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I stand to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act.

I would like to put on the record the purpose of this act, which is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the issues of compensation for untimely payment, defaults on tax obligations by certain tenants of the crown and the bijural nature of the Canadian legal system. Additionally, it establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister on disputes concerning payment amounts. It also amends the title of the act to the payments in lieu of taxes act. That is the purpose of the act. That is the purpose of the debate.

We tend to differ in the description, but that is the description provided to us by the government.

Let us take a look at the relationship of the municipal government to the provincial government and then to the federal government. About 15 years ago, long before I ever thought I would be crazy enough to get involved in politics, I vividly recall sitting in front of my television set watching Allan MacEachen, the then Liberal finance minister, waxing eloquently from his place in the House. He was going on about the fact that the Liberal government of the day, of which the Liberal government today is simply a carbon copy, was going to balance its books. In a typical Liberal sleight of hand, what it was basically doing was offloading expenses from itself to the provinces.

Living in the province of British Columbia at that particular time, as I recall, things were at a rather tight juncture. It was in the early eighties. We had been slapped with the grossly ill-conceived concept of the national energy plan of the Liberals, the centrist plan that pulled about $80 billion permanently out of western Canada into central Canada. I recall thinking to myself at the time that the downloading to the provinces which Mr. MacEachen was talking about and the fact that the province of British Columbia was in no position to actually do anything about it, undoubtedly would end up appearing on my taxes, and would undoubtedly come out of my pocket, one way or the other, particularly as a homeowner.

It did not take long. The reality was that although the federal tax take out of my wallet and the wallets of my neighbours was not diminished, and the tax take out of my wallet and the wallets of my neighbours by the province was not diminished, the government ended up downloading it to the regional district in which I lived, which was the equivalent of a municipality. By downloading it what basically happened was that my property taxes went up by $200 that year.

A Liberal finance minister stood here about 15 years ago and waxed eloquently about how he was going to get federal taxes under control and how he was coming closer to balancing the books, but of course the government never did. It just kept on adding and adding to what is now the massive national debt. The government talked about how it was going to get things under control, but I knew, because it was being announced by a Liberal, that there was going to be more money coming out of my pocket.

I would take the Liberal member for Oak Ridges at his word if the municipalities were looking at this, were involved in it and had some input into it, but unfortunately they are faced with the reality that they are at the bottom of the food chain as far as being able to look after themselves and being able to take care of their own fiscal requirements.

I should add that one of the great things about municipal finances is that on a year to year basis municipalities may not go into a debt or deficit situation. The government could certainly take lessons from that. It is something for which the municipal politicians deserve great credit. The fact is, they have to come up constantly with the delivery of services for people at the municipal and regional district levels. The municipalities manage to deliver services, be they to people, be they for reasons of property, or just the services of cleaning roads and streets, in spite of all the offloading of the Liberals in Ottawa. Let us be clear, it was the Liberals who downloaded all of the expense that has sifted down through to the provinces and on down through to the municipalities. Once again the taxpayer is being double whammied by the Liberals.

Why do I say that I understand what the member for Oak Ridges was saying, particularly with his involvement and the involvement of other members of this House in municipal governments? Why do I say that I understand where they are coming from in terms of the municipal governments being let in on some of the ideas that the federal government has, at the same time knowing that they have a gigantic club over their heads? They do the best they can. They make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, to use the old saying.

I should also add that I was rather interested in this prominent Liberal member's musings that perhaps the middleman should be eliminated, namely the provinces; that somehow the municipalities and regional districts would be better off if they were dealing directly with the federal government. Heaven help them. When we shake hands with these people we wonder if we will still have our wedding rings.

Municipal governments are creatures of provincial governments. They are not recognized under Canada's constitution. They are completely under the direction, the control and the legislative authority of the provinces. The member suggested that we eliminate the middleman. That is to say, maybe we should remove the direct control of the municipalities which are delivering the services closest to the people, closest to their homes. This is the garbage collection. This is the social services cheque. This is the street cleaning. This is making sure that the gutters are clean and the leaves are removed. These are the details of everybody's life. Should we take the current authority for that, the provincial government, which heaven only knows is far enough away in most situations, and give it to Ottawa? That would mean that the municipalities and regional districts would answer to, be responsible to and be under the legislative authority of the federal government. I do not think so.

The government talks frequently about the infrastructure program. Let us take a look at how this act, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, relates to the income of the municipalities. Looking at the past infrastructure program—and I understand that there is a proposed program coming, just in time for the next election no doubt—wondering why the municipalities express being in favour of it is not rocket science. It is very simple and straightforward.

So far I have described the problems which municipalities face because of the offloading of expenses from the federal level to the provincial level and ultimately to the municipal level, the municipal level having to work on a deficit free budget year in and year out. The municipalities are faced with a cash crunch. There are so many hands in their pockets from the authorities higher up, there are so many strings attached to any money that is available to them, that they will take any money they can get for needed capital projects.

Why are they not carrying on with capital projects without an infrastructure program? Because this government has attacked their very tax base. They do not have a tax base from which they can get the funds to do the things on their own.

It makes me think of the government's attitude toward the family. The government will take $6 billion from people earning under $20,000 a year this year. It will take $6 billion in taxes, give them peanuts back and say, “Here is a little grant and another little grant. Are we not wonderful people?” The government will continue to have its hands in the pockets of individual Canadians, businesses and municipalities. It will continue to act like a gigantic vacuum cleaner. It will bring all the cash here to the bureaucracy in Ottawa, then turn around and give a pittance back.

The municipalities in light of that look at an infrastructure program and say, “Now we are getting something a little bigger than the pittance we normally receive. Now we are supposedly getting two-thirds free money”.

This is the way the infrastructure programs basically work. Let us say a municipality wanted an intersection upgrade. That is very easy. For different traffic islands, curbing, traffic lights and signals, it is easy to invest $1 million in infrastructure like that. Let us simplify it and say it will cost $900,000. The municipality has to raise $300,000. The province has to match that with another $300,000. The federal government can match it with another $300,000.

It is interesting that for just under $1 million for an infrastructure program, the federal government only invests $300,000 and gets all the credit for it. It is an absolutely wonderful, masterful way of moving around a pea under shells. The government manages to baffle people who are not necessarily prepared to take the time to understand just how far the government has its hands in the pockets of individuals, businesses and municipalities.

As a creature of the provincial government, one of the difficulties municipalities have is when they do their budgeting. This varies from province to province, but as a blanket statement it seems to me that in doing their budgeting, the municipalities are never really sure of what the actual grants will be from the provincial government. In turn, one of the concerns I have about this or any other legislation, is rather than being tied into something concrete, hard and normal, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, does not resolve the problem of where the money is going to come from.

According to Bill C-10, the minister is given the authority to pay interest on the payments in lieu of taxes if, in his opinion, that payment in whole or in part has been unreasonably delayed. That is just about as soft and mushy a bunch of words as I have ever seen in any act.

In the minister's opinion. Who is to say what the minister's opinion is going to be? Unreasonably delayed. Who is going to set the yardstick for what is reasonable or unreasonable?

On third party leases, the government leases some of its properties to non-departmental third parties. In the past, municipalities have experienced difficulty in collecting property taxes from these third parties with payment sometimes never being made.

To correct this situation, Bill C-10 proposes that if, as of the day following the last day of the taxation year, all or part of the taxes remain unpaid and if, and here we go again, “the minister is of the opinion”—that is the qualifier—“that the taxing authority has made all reasonable efforts to collect the tax and there is no likelihood that the authority will ever be able to collect it”, then the property will be deemed to be a federal property and the federal government will pay the payment in lieu of taxes.

Again, as with all the legislation, without exception, that is ever brought forward by this government, there is all of this continuing latitude for the minister, “in the opinion of”, “if it is unreasonably delayed” and things that are simply not clear and not made definite.

It is absolutely paramount that the municipal authorities are able to do their budgeting. They already have a serious problem. In various provincial jurisdictions the province may be treating them fairly and in a timely manner, and in other provincial jurisdictions they may not. It can vary in treatment from place to place even within a given province.

Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, continues with all this latitude for the minister, “in the opinion of” and “if it is unreasonably delayed”.

Why are the municipalities having difficulty in providing the level of service that people want, expect and deserve? This will vary from municipality to municipality. While it is mandated under their current spending that they may not go into deficit, they may nonetheless become involved in capital spending through borrowing. Some municipalities have gone into debt quite seriously. They go ahead with heavy municipal borrowing so they can go ahead with infrastructure programs.

That is the reason many municipalities respond very positively to the infrastructure program. It simply gives them back money that has already been extracted from them, from their constituency and from their province, but they nonetheless respond positively to it. Other municipalities will have decided that they are going to use a pay as you go basis with respect to the majority of their capital expenditures.

In the municipality of Cranbrook, where my constituency office is, there is a very serious challenge in terms of the streets. The city proper of about 15,000 is actually built on an old glacial gravel bed. Down under the topsoil, which is only a couple of inches, there is a deep gravel bed. This has created a serious problem for the main streets and side streets. As the city has grown, and as the amount of truck traffic in particular has increased on the feeder streets, the side streets simply have not stood up. As a consequence there is a constant battle of the budget.

I do not own property in Cranbrook. Therefore I am not offering an opinion, but an observation. The challenge is to say that a street is in such a state of disrepair that it requires temporary remedial action or that a very large volume of money is going to be spent to go down as far as 8 feet or 10 feet into the gravel so that the street can be built back up again and it will be permanently changed.

These are the kinds of challenges that municipalities are faced with on a month to month basis, particularly in Canada. With the exception of the lower mainland of British Columbia, we have a very harsh climate that drives the frost well down into the ground and into the services that are underneath the roads.

The point I am trying to drive at is that municipalities need more than anything the assurance of funding, where the money is going to come from. The province of British Columbia because of the NDP government of the last term and a half has a terrible situation. The government is having to extract more and more from the municipalities which is putting them at a real disadvantage.

In conclusion, my concern about Bill C-10 is simply this. What we need in our province, and I believe for that matter in all provinces for all municipalities, is more surety of funding. Unfortunately in my judgment, Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, does not provide that surety.

[Csis, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will read section 20(2) to the solicitor general again. It says that the minister in turn must send the report with his comments to the Attorney General of Canada and to the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

He did not do that. He received a report from CSIS. He did not send the report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Is that not a breaking of this statute?

[Csis, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we know that top secret documents were stolen from a CSIS operative. In the minister's own words, he received a report from CSIS immediately.

I remind him that section 20, paragraph 2 of the CSIS act says specifically that the minister in turn must send the report with his comments to the Attorney General of Canada and SIRC. He did not do this. Why did the minister break the law?