Jim Abbott

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party fully acknowledges the necessity of the revisions for the Copyright Act. As a matter of fact, the Reform Party would be very supportive of a well thought out process which would achieve that objective. Unfortunately this bill does not represent that well thought out approach.

The bill was initially tabled on April 23, 1996. It had second reading on June 4, 1996 and there was a briefing meeting with officials from industry and heritage on June 18, 1996. It was at that meeting that we had our first indication that the bill, indeed this entire effort on the part of the heritage minister, was in great trouble.

There were a number of questions that I had posed at that briefing meeting that it seemed to me the officials, with all due respect, were completely unprepared for. Many parts of the bill, unfortunately, had not been thought through at all.

When the minister made her presentation to the committee, which I believe was in September 1996, she was basically working from briefing notes and had not grasped the implications or the problems which the bill she was proposing would create both for the creators and for the users of the work that comes under copyright legislation.

The process, unfortunately, went further off track in my judgment in that the committee also decided, against my protestations, to have the selection of witnesses in camera. There was a deletion of concerned parties to the bill. There was a period of time when there was a tremendous amount of unhappiness about that.

I must say that during the process of the crammed committee hearings there developed a tremendous spirit of co-operation among the members of the committee.

As with the member who spoke before me, I would like to pay tremendous respect to the members of the committee from all parties who worked in that spirit of co-operation. I would particularly like to say that the work of the parliamentary secretary and the work of the chair of the committee aided the process, and I commend them for that.

It was unfortunate that the spirit of co-operation, although it was leading to a very productive process of making necessary changes and improvements to the bill, ended up being seriously side tracked. As a matter of fact, it was fully derailed in a massive train wreck by the heritage minister.

It seems to me that basically what happened was she came to the conclusion that since becoming heritage minister she really had not accomplished anything and suddenly decided-

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 43 on page 71, and lines 1 to 37 on page 72.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That the Canadian Heritage estimates vote 5(b) be reduced by $60,000 which is the amount of the contracts received by the heritage minister's senior advisor in her failed leadership bid.

[Heritage, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the public conflict of interest code states that friends of public office holders should receive no preferential treatment in relation to any official matter.

Joe Thornley is the chair of the Liberal Agency of Canada overseeing millions of dollars in contributions, making him one of the highest ranking Liberals in the country. He is also a friend of the heritage minister and was a senior member of her 1990 Liberal leadership bid. Only when the minister assumed her post as heritage minister did Thornley begin to receive heritage contracts.

Does the minister expect Canadians to believe he got no preferential treatment from her in her department?

[Heritage, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I take particular note that Thornley did not receive a single, solitary heritage contract until the minister took over. Since the minister took office in January 1996, Thornley has managed to secure at least four contracts worth $60,000. I also note that the minister's personal friend is listed as official agent for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Does the heritage minister really believe federal contracts to her well connected Liberal friend, her personal friend, will foster Canadian patriotism?

[Heritage, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Joe Thornley was a senior player in the heritage minister's leadership campaign. Now the minister seems to be returning the favour with taxpayers' money. I have evidence that shows Thornley received a $30,000 contract from the minister's department to work on the national flag program.

What special knowledge did the minister's personal friend have about the Canadian flag that was worth $30,000 in Canadian taxpayers' money?

[Juno Awards, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Junos were awarded in a gala ceremony in Hamilton last evening. Congratulations to all those who were nominated and to the winners of this most prestigious award.

Last evening we saw the depth of the pool of Canadian talent. However, it is unfortunate that the heritage minister continues to

exhibit her lack of faith in the development of the great Canadian spirit in our artistic community.

On February 10, in a CBC radio interview, the minister stated: "Canadian artists essentially would not be where they are today if not for the policies, particularly the Canadian content rules, of this government". To which I say shame.

These performers are talented and successful because of their hard work and perseverance and determination. They are stars nationally and internationally because Canadians and people around the world recognize their talent for what it is. Canadians support these people not because of this minister's bureaucratic Canadian content rules. Canadian support these people because they are good.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

It's a tax increase.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to see that member or any other Liberal in my riding. I am not even the slightest bit concerned, but he should be.

I come back to the medicare issue. He is talking about the fact that the Liberals brought in medicare. When the Liberals brought in medicare the federal government promised 50-50 funding to the provinces. What happened to the 50-50 funding to the provinces? It slashed, hacked, downloaded to the provinces, still asked the provinces to do exactly the same things while giving them a 20 cent dollar instead of a 50 cent dollar.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy this member brought up his pension plan and the pension plan of all of the other people who are in this disgusting MP pension plan. They have looked after themselves all right. They have taken care of themselves and then they are shafting the Canadian public with this 70 per cent increase.

What I would like to know from any of those members that are on this fat pension plan is are any of them going to be doing a 70 per cent increase in the premiums they are paying.

The Canadian public right now is paying $4 for every $1 that these people put in. Right now what is going on is with this increase of $1,300 a year Canadians are going to be getting less out than what they are putting in. These people are absolutely disgusting that they would even bring up their pension plan.