Jim Abbott

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me make very clear that I understand the notwithstanding clause. I understand that it is not an either/or. The appeal can proceed. We can do both, and that is what Canadians want. Why? Because the member himself said that adjournments were currently being sought. He also said that it would be expedited. Expediting something in a court is akin to watching molasses trying to drip out of a container in the Arctic in January.

I do not care how much expediting is going on. This case will drag on for one or two years at least. The member is not prepared to acknowledge that.

Furthermore, at this time it is not enough that the police in Canada have had the tools of their trade taken out of their hands in so many other instances. In this case the member knows full well that if the police were to go to a judge today and ask for a search warrant on the basis of this law they would not receive it. I read what was said, that the search warrant would have not been granted for Sharpe if this law was not in place.

In British Columbia the law is not in place and search warrants cannot happen. The police are being restricted in being able to stop this most reprehensible of all crimes.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it does not give me great pleasure to come to the House to debate this as I believe that the courts have made a mistake.

I believe that the justice minister should have acted on this issue in a far more decisive way. It does not give me pleasure to be debating this because there should be no debate. The children of Canada must be protected. Under this justice minister, under this government, that is not happening.

The definition of civilization is that we protect those who cannot protect themselves. We must look after the children of Canada. The people of Canada are saying to us in the House protect our children.

The justice in his ruling wrote: “There is no evidence that the production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if simple possession is made a crime”. The word significantly blows this thing completely out of proportion. What does he mean by significantly reduced?. It is the responsibility of the House to protect the children of Canada. For this justice to say that he is making this ruling because there is no evidence that they will be more significantly protected, even if they are protected one small amount, that is better than this judgment.

We are faced in Canada today with judicial activism that in no way reflects the values of Canadian citizens and Canadian society. The values that Canadians are concerned with is protecting their children. They demand few things. They expect safe streets. They are not getting safe streets. They expect to be free from terrorism and unfortunately in some cases they are not getting this. They expect to be free and to avoid the issue of drugs for teens. They want the protection of their teens from a drug culture. They expect protection from being ripped off. Sadly this government is going very slow. They expect those things but what do they demand? They demand the protection of children.

The justice minister has said to the police to go ahead and do your thing. As a solicitor general critic, as I go in and out of RCMP detachments I run into file after file that is full to overflowing, brimming with paper and documents just to protect the police because of the charter action that has been taken in so many instances. The judicial activism that is presently underway not in any way reflecting the values of Canadians is hampering the police in their ability to do their job.

There has been mischief by the charter of rights and it has been mischief that has been brought forward by the law society in Canada. We even have first degree murderers who walk away when the courts decide they should have had a search warrant under certain conditions. So all of a sudden things are overturned, murderers are permitted to go free and in retrials there are situations where there cannot even be proper evidence brought forward.

There is just one thing that I can say about murderers versus this issue. At least the people who are murdered are dead. The difference in this issue is that the children of Canada who are subjected to this become the walking dead. We must protect children and we must protect our children now.

The justice went on to say a few more things:

A person's belongings are an expression of that person's essential self.

Another quote:

It is the means of ensuring individual self-fulfilment by developing and articulating thoughts and ideas as they see fit.

Mr. Sharpe was quoted as saying:

—that pornography is probably good for children, that children are able to consent to have sex with adults and that child pornography laws interfere with the rights of those who are interested in adult-child sex.

How can a four year old make any kind of an informed judgment on that? How can an eight year old make any kind of an informed judgment? That is what Canadians are faced with today. How absolutely pathetically stupid, ridiculous and reprehensible that statement is.

If the people on that side of the House do not understand that we are sitting with a hand grenade, with the pin pulled, let me quote Eugene Meehan of Lang Mitchener on CFRA this morning. He equated the situation to “a grenade with the pin pulled”. This situation is urgent. The opportunity to expose child pornography will increase rapidly as a result. It will happen. It is happening.

A police officer testified that as a result of the possession count against Sharpe, the police had been able to obtain warrants and carry out searches that have assisted them in finding child molesters. In British Columbia that is all set aside at this point. The justice minister can say to the police go ahead but the law has been struck down and needs to resurrected. We need to have action and we need it now.

Let me address the issue of who we are in the Chamber. There are 301 people in the Chamber elected by the people of Canada. The people of Canada assume that the House of Commons is the supreme power in the country. Under this justice minister and her predecessor, under this solicitor general and his predecessor, the government has allowed the courts to become the lawmakers and the law restricters in Canada.

We must stand up. We must be counted. It is up to members of parliament to reflect the values of the people of Canada. The people of Canada are saying “Protect our children, protect our children now”.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker,the member has unwittingly made my point. He is an accountant. His explanation, as eloquent as it is, is proof positive of how totally mixed up, convoluted, thick and unworkable the Tax Act is presently.

We are talking about putting money back into the hands of low income people. From the point of view of the sheer volume of the words that he just gave us, I do not understand his answer.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments about people in the lower income area. He would be aware that this government in its wisdom chooses to tax at a very high rate, for example, a family of four earning $30,000 a year. Those people are still paying at least $4,000 a year in federal taxes. He should know that under the Reform proposal we would fundamentally eliminate those taxes at that level.

Why does the member not understand the simple mathematics in this case? If the government is to continue to extract these kinds of taxes from people at the low end and then turn around and give them back meagre pittances, meagre portions, meagre initiatives, why does he not understand that dollars left in the hands of those people, where those people at the low end of the scale get to make the decisions for their family, are far more productive than taking those dollars away and in turn turning around and giving them back?

The reality is that since the Liberals came to power in 1993 they have taxed back 155% of all wage increases. It has not paid to have a wage increase under the Liberals. Why does he not recommend to his finance minister to leave the money in the hands of the people who need the money rather than extracting it from them?

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, section 45.36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC R-10 is the authority under which I say this person, Heafey, who was appointed by the Liberals, has the ability to terminate this boondoggle, which is all that it is. It is mortally wounded. Put it in its grave. Give us an independent judicial inquiry.

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the solicitor general should put the training wheels back on.

The reality is that the public complaints commission can be terminated under the following grounds: number one, the investigation be better carried out under the authority of another act of parliament, or further investigation is not reasonably practical. This situation fulfils both of those criteria.

When are we going to get an independent judicial inquiry from this solicitor general?

[Organized Crime, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I welcome the opportunity to respond to the solicitor general's statement on the state of security in Canada, in particular organized crime. There is overwhelming evidence that organized crime is increasing at an alarming rate. Today's numerous headlines on organized crime activities highlight the importance of action and commitment that the government get on with its job.

We agree that its effects are far reaching and devastating to our society both economically and socially. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is warning of the existence of 18 international crime rings in Canada. The CSIS report indicates that the cost of international crime to the domestic economy is $14.8 billion. Drug trafficking, dumping of toxic waste, money laundering, smuggling of arms, contraband, counterfeiting, security frauds, software piracy and auto theft are some of the issues under the control of organized crime.

CSIS is reporting that international crime organizations attack the very fabric of life in a democratic law based society like Canada. 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 in our streets, in our businesses and, worst of all, in our school yards. 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 and we need it now. Canadians will only feel safe and confident when these resources are committed to this attack. Crime is organized. So too should government efforts be.

I join the minister in congratulating the work of the RCMP, justice, revenue, citizenship and immigration, and others. I presume the minister also congratulates CSIS on its work. All these agencies must work together if they are to be successful in the war on organized crime. Effort must be made to avoid a duplication of resources and investigation by the agencies.

Taking today's headlines as an example, “CSIS warns of 18 international crime rings in Canada” and “RCMP charge four with eastern European crime links”, we must ensure there is no overlapping and squandering of essential but limited resources. In summary, no turf wars.

The minister has said that crime respects no borders. I would go even further and remind the minister that all those borders are not defined.

On a related issue, according to a study published by Carleton University, Canada is especially susceptible to economic spies because it is one of the world's most open and trade dependent countries. CSIS has warned that computer hackers pose a serious threat to national security. Terrorists could hack into government networks to sabotage and steal important valuable information. CSIS's own computer network was broken into. It has been reported that the RCMP web site has been tampered with. A recent CSIS presentation shows that 28 federal departments have been hacked.

Control of information is critical and concerns are not restricted to cyberspace. The government even has trouble with low tech like ink on paper. This past week access to confidential documents has been made easier, thanks to the federal government's decision to let contracts to bankrupt companies that are supposed to shred confidential documents.

What happened? The documents were shipped out in their entirety, not shredded or burned as required, to destinations like China and Korea. The government has not retrieved the documents. Nor does it seem to care. Some of these files were so highly classified by the privy council and national defence they should have been burned in front of witnesses.

The government's cavalier attitude does little to assure Canadians that their privacy and security has not and will not be breached. I urge the government to get on with the job. It seems that sometimes with the government more is said than done.

[Points Of Order, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct an impression I left with the House as a result of statements I made on November 2.

In asking a question of the solicitor general respecting a flight taken by RCMP Commissioner Murray in the RCMP jet, I implied the only reason for the commissioner's flight was to attend a retirement party. As I did not go on to say that the commissioner had other business in Vancouver and the timing of the RCMP retirement party was established to coincide with the trip, it was an unfair representation of the commissioner's activities.

I have had the opportunity to meet with and personally apologize to the commissioner and he has accepted my apology. I believe that politicians must be accountable for their statements, both in accuracy and fairness, and it is for this reason that I wish to register my apology with this Chamber.

[Apec Inquiry, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what happened at last year's APEC conference when pepper spray met protesters? Will we ever know? Does it really matter?

Here are the questions. Were the protests captured on TV a result of independent police action, or was it the Prime Minister and his office suppressing Canadian rights of association and expression? Were Canadians jailed to protect heads of state or to save ruthless dictators from embarrassment?

Thousands of pages of evidence and audio and video tapes point to the Prime Minister, but that evidence is tied up in legal knots thanks to government paid lawyers. The public complaints commission is shut down for at least six months. In fact the commission was never designed to probe political accountability.

Here is why the APEC scandal matters to Canadians as expressed by Craig Jones, one of the jailed protesters:

The root issue for me is to what extent we are going to accept the political control of the RCMP by the executive branch of the government.

Unlike the Prime Minister, Canadians do not want scapegoats. They want political accountability.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the farmers and ranchers of Kootenay—Columbia who are faced with the specific problem sourced and created by the Liberal government that relates to all farmers and many Canadians across Canada.

Ranching and farming are not nine to five jobs. They involve long, hard hours and hard work often seven days a week. Many farms and farmers have people off farm working in town at other jobs and using that money to subsidize the farms.

I am referring to the way in which Revenue Canada, under the control, jurisdiction and direction of the Liberal government, is “helping farmers” off the farm. It is bloodthirsty. It is making changes to the law retroactively. It shows absolutely no compassion or conscience while it is holding up the bank by robbing farmers of money they need to pay off bank loans and try to keep their heads above bankruptcy year after year.

Let me give the specifics of a case. I believe they would apply to all ranchers and farmers across Canada. In my constituency ranchers and farmers are cutting timber to enhance grazing or farmland. They consulted national and local accounting firms on how the money would be treated by Revenue Canada. They based their decision to proceed with the timber cut based on information confirmed by Revenue Canada.

In 1996 and prior years accountants confirmed with Revenue Canada the money was to be reported under capital gains and taxed accordingly. These are operations which do not normally depend on the cutting of timber for their livelihood but may exercise the option once or twice during the ownership of the property. It should be noted that from the cases received in my office not one individual purchased the property with the intent to remove the timber as a continuing trade or source of income.

In the 1996-97 year Revenue Canada made a decision to review a number of tax returns reporting money derived from timber sales and issued approximately 50 questionnaires to ranchers and farmers who had reported money from timber sales. An additional 50 questionnaires in early 1998 came out and more are anticipated. These tax returns were determined from cross-checks of names from the timber mark office in Victoria and Revenue Canada files. The timber mark list was obtained through a general memorandum of understanding between Revenue Canada and the province of B.C.

The 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 tax years were reviewed and reassessed according to the new interpretation by Revenue Canada. In June 1998 the Tax Court of Canada heard a case called the Larsen case and a decision was made in July in favour of taxpayer Larsen.

A decision has been made by the Minister of National Revenue to appeal the decision, which would require the case to be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal. A recent letter received in my office on another issue signed by the minister stated that where a taxpayer disagrees with the department's decision an appeal may be filed through the Tax Court of Canada.

The tax court is an independent tribunal and provides the appropriate means to settle an honest difference of opinion between Revenue Canada and the taxpayer. It is to be noted that the tax court found in favour of my taxpayer.

Similar cases were heard by the tax court in the early 1950s and 1970s and rulings were also in favour of the taxpayer. Even with that history, Revenue Canada insisted on presenting its case again and spending more taxpayers dollars fighting the hand that feeds it, the hand of the taxpayer.

Revenue Canada says there has not been a change in the legislation in question. The reason for the audits being done in 1996 and 1997 and to continue in 1998 is that in the past the amounts received from the sale of timber taken off the properties was insignificant according to Revenue Canada definition and therefore was never questioned as to whether it was treated as a capital gain against the cost base of the property.

In the 1990s the dollar value in the sale of timber has increased. Therefore Revenue Canada no longer considers the amounts to be insignificant. Consequently it is questionable if the amounts can be treated as a capital gain against the cost base of the property.

Initially our office was advised by Revenue Canada staff that the reassessments were nationwide and B.C. was the last area to be reviewed. It should be noted that this problem is not just a problem in British Columbia in my constituency. It is also a problem in the maritimes.

The point of my presentation is that the Liberals talk all the time about how they are helping people, how they are serving people. It was pointed out during the tenure of John Turner, when he was temporary prime minister of Canada, that serving the public is also a term that can be used for bulls.

A case scenario is one where there is a partnership of three individuals who were all reassessed. The initial appeal of capital gain treatment was rejected. The accountant was advised by Revenue Canada that the money should have been treated as revenue versus losses. These people are in a position where it will cost them more money to fight Revenue Canada than it would for them to comply with this reassessment by Revenue Canada.

A second case is of a retiree who is in a position where he is just not able to service the extra load dumped on him by Revenue Canada. We are talking about a potential bailout by the Liberals of a specific problem. I am talking about the problem for all ranchers and farmers across Canada, that Revenue Canada fundamentally is out of control when it does retroactive tax grabs. This is what I am speaking about.

The Liberals have to get it right. They have to treat ranchers, farmers, all taxpayers fairly.