Jim Abbott

[Broadcasting Act, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the Reform Party. Our position on this bill, subject to individual members' votes, is that we would be supporting the bill.

Part of the problem and one of the hesitations I had as heritage critic in recommending to my caucus that we look at supporting this bill is the fact that it does not really deal with the issue. It is a little band-aid on a great big problem.

Anybody who comes to my home will see some of the construction I have done. It is really quite laughable and identifiable. There is a fairly broad piece of trim which covers up the error I made when I was trying to put the corners together. On top of that broad piece of trim is a medium size piece of trim to cover up the errors I made when I was crafting the broad piece of trim. Then there is a very small piece of trim which actually covers up the problem that was created with the medium size piece of trim. In other words, I am not a particularly good carpenter and it requires a tremendous amount of work to cover up the fact that the whole thing is being held together by chicken wire and chewing gum.

It seems to me that is a word picture of what we have with the CRTC and the fact we are dealing with this issue. This bill is a band-aid, a small piece of trim on a far larger problem. This is the reason there was concern about supporting the bill.

The heritage minister has called for a review of the CRTC. I am not sure how serious she was. It seems to me that just about every time she wakes up in the morning she has some new ideas and then her department has to run around after her picking up the pieces. Whether or not she was really serious about a CRTC review, I do not know.

The problem is that there is a need for a CRTC review. The CRTC reflects what would be best classed as horse and carriage electronics. What I am saying is we have moved from the horse past the car to the jet, to the space age piece of equipment, while the CRTC mandate itself and the way it goes about doing its regulations is held back still feeding oats to the horse. An awful lot of the regulations show the results of feeding the oats to the horse by the road apples.

The problem is the CRTC comes forward with the kind of regulations that it does, particularly the kind of decisions it makes with respect to content. It ends up effectively forcing the cable companies to find creative ways to get around the problem, that somehow they are going to have to get dollars for some of these programs and some of the content that is going to be put on the air.

Clearly with the way the technology is right now in 1996 in the majority of homes in Canada, there cannot be true competition in the cable industry. In fact, we have to go outside the cable industry, speaking of technology, in order to create competition for the cable industry.

The marketplace probably would take care of this kind of negative option billing, this kind of high handed approach that was exercised by the cable companies in trying to come forward and get the revenue the CRTC said they had to get for these channels that nobody wanted. It would have worked out.

For example, there would have been competition if we had had a coherent policy from this government with respect to direct to home satellite service. Right now the DTH and the decision cabinet made to not interfere with the CRTC is driving a grey market of gigantic proportions.

Across the border from my constituency is a very small town in the northern area of Idaho. On a very busy day I do not think we would find 50 people in that town but amazingly there are 600 mailboxes. I wonder why there would be 600 mailboxes for 50 people. I bet it has something to do with the fact that if someone wants to get into the satellite grey market they have to have a post office box in their name in the United States. I will bet that is the answer.

That is the reality of what is going on, not only to people who are adjacent to the border as my constituency is but to people further north, in northern areas of British Columbia and in northern areas of Alberta. That is what is going on in western Canada. Quite frankly if it is not happening in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the prairies and Quebec, I would be very surprised. That is going on because of the very bad, antiquated, out of touch, out of date policies this government is having the CRTC enact. We are driving people to become electronic Americans. That is the shame of it.

This is the same cabinet that made the decision not to interfere with, not to question the decisions that were made with respect to the direct to home satellite. This is the same cabinet which said: "No, we cannot do that". It is the same cabinet which on the same day decided it was going to interfere for the second time with digital audio services that had been proposed by Shaw Cable. It defies logic to have people believe that the same cabinet which would not overturn the boneheaded position of the CRTC with respect to direct to home satellite service, on the same day by some coincidence would interfere with a Canadian company trying to bring digital audio services to Canadians on a Canadian service. It defies logic for the cabinet to suggest that it could not do one but could just happen to do the other.

It is for that reason, if the heritage minister is serious and if she is calling for a real CRTC review from top to bottom particularly with respect to its mandate, we would be fully supportive of that. However, I do have a caveat on that as well. The difficulty is that these little mental droppings she gave to us about her thinking of having a CRTC review, which I happened to see in ink in the newspapers, indicated that she was going to have the CRTC review itself.

Heaven forbid that we should get into another $2.5 million Juneau boondoggle as we did with the CBC review. That was pretty ridiculous when the budget for the CBC review I believe was struck at around $900,000 and the Canadian taxpayer ended up paying out over $2.5 million for it. I am not recommending that.

On the other side of the coin I also think it is very short sighted, narrow minded and myopic on the part of the minister for her to say: "Why don't we have a review of the CRTC by the CRTC for the CRTC so that it can tell me about the CRTC and what it should be doing". The minister does not seem to have a tremendous amount of control over a lot of things, quite frankly.

Let me get back to the issue of Bill C-216. The reason I support it and in spite of the fact that I see it as being a necessary little band-aid on the larger issue of whether the CRTC should be doing these things is that I do believe there has to be protection in our society for tactics that can be used by people in a broadly based commercial marketplace.

Let me make my position really clear on that. I do not believe in overregulation in a narrow marketplace. The reason I do not believe in overregulation in a narrow marketplace is that I do believe in the basic assumption in business of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. Far too often we try to mandate with government action things that could be better handled by the free market.

In this instance, there is a very broadly based marketplace and there are seniors and people who require some protection. Therefore, I would support and I am recommending to my colleagues in the Reform Party to support Bill C-216 to afford that protection to a broadly based marketplace.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was really interested in the comments by my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of the thoughts that crossed my mind was a term I was trying to think of earlier in the most recent exchange. What we are looking for here is Liberal logic. Basically he has asked them to take a look at some very logical, rational ideas that would put the rights of the victim first.

Would he agree with me that the term Liberal logic is the ultimate oxymoron?

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member speaks about fulfilling his duties. I wonder if the member would care to stand up perhaps in the next segment in debate when he can answer the question of how he fulfilled his duty in that committee on Bill C-68 when the people in his constituency clearly and demonstrably gave him direction that he was to vote against Bill C-68.

I suggest the reason he did not fulfil his responsibility to his people in his constituency was that he knew if he kept quiet on Bill C-68 he just might have a chance of being appointed the chair of that committee.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, of course we are talking to the now defunct, failed, fired parliamentary secretary who used to spend all of his time in the House.

Maybe I could ask him the same question. Did he attend the justice committee? Did he attend the finance committee? Did he attend the heritage committee? Did he attend the natural resources committee? Did he attend the environment committee? What was he doing wasting his time here in the House, running around like he did before, making all sorts of these little yattering noises?

We all know very well that what really goes on is when a member of Parliament comes to Ottawa, unfortunately even if he is six foot five and 250 pounds, he cannot be dissected and sent to this committee, that committee and also be in the House to answer the inanities of the former parliamentary secretary.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as you would be aware and I know the member is aware, a member of Parliament has many responsibilities be they in revenue, in heritage, whatever the case may be.

This issue is of tremendous importance to people in my constituency. As a matter of fact, I devoted my most recent householder entirely to the issue of crime and what the ordinary citizen could be doing about crime even under the meagre, pitiful laws the Liberals are presently toying with.

As we have been given the opportunity today, when I do have some time available to speak to this issue, I speak on behalf of the people of Kootenay East. They say to this government to get on with the job, change the justice system and do not tinker and play with it with these silly make work projects.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, there are many issues the justice minister is absolutely ignoring and I might suggest at his peril and the peril of the Liberal Party. They are issues like section 745 which has the absolute backing of the majority of the members of this House and the majority of people in Canada. It also has the backing particularly of the victims of the people who are currently incarcerated who may become eligible under section 745. There are many, many bills like that.

It is so obvious and seems quite clear to me, to return to my original thesis, that this bill is simply a make work project. The justice minister is not listening. We could not only save the time of this House and the cost of putting this bill through, but we could also save the $3 million a year that will be forked out to the Liberal lawyer friends.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Well, was it not a minister who said that we should have more transparent patronage? Is that not what he said in the House the other day? Only the Liberals would say that.

The point I am trying to drive home and for the people of Canada to understand, is that when the Liberals run out of work they can give to their friends, they come up with some kind of a make work project like this one. What do we have in Canada as a result of the charter of rights and freedoms but a charter industry populated by high priced lawyers who go around trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is only in the wonderful world of the Liberals.

We have stated, since its inception, that the country needs less government, not more. Canada has no lack of agencies, boards or commissions. Creating another agency when the work proposed is already being done makes absolutely no sense, which is the thesis of my speech.

It is not a matter of privatizing law reform. There is no mention of making cuts within the justice department when its work will be done by the commission. This is a make work project for the government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is it, plain and simple. This is a Liberal patronage bill.

Look at the fact that the Prime Minister is not satisfied to just appoint Liberal bagmen to the other place. People go there and travel at taxpayers' expense going around and collecting funds for the Liberal government for the upcoming election. He is not satisfied with that.

As a matter of fact, Senator Taylor, the most recent appointment to the other place, was very open, honest, candid and frank when he said: "This is a patronage appointment. I have been a Liberal all of my life and this is what I get for it". He got appointed to the other place so that he can travel around and pick up money for those people. It is absolutely shameful.

If we value the work of an independent commission, why is the justice minister so closely involved in the process? Because this is not an independent commission. That is why. This is a process of making work for Liberal lawyer friends.

The justice minister picks appointees, he has a say on the agenda and will have flexibility in response to the commission's recommendations. Even after these lawyers get paid all of this money, the justice minister will have flexibility. If we were to translate that, the justice minister can ignore the recommendations. These recommendations have the potential of being of absolutely no value except the value that has been siphoned out of the pockets of tax paying Canadians.

If we are truly interested in the modernization and reform of Canadian law, why would we not have a completely independent body without such a large role for the Minister of Justice?

I rest my case. The plain fact of the matter is that because of the very, very close tie-in, the connections, the absolute control by the minister of justice, this law does nothing except make work for Liberal lawyer friends.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

-Liberal logic. You got it.

The minister also gets a say in the appointment of council members. In short, it appears that the new law commission will be an extension of the minister's and the department's staff. If it is simply an extension of the minister's and department's staff, why are we setting it up? Why not just give the justice department another $3 million and say to get on with the job? If that is what this whole process is all about, there certainly would have been a less expensive way than going through the whole business of coming up with this legislation. Why did he not ask for an extra $3 million from the Minister of Finance?

It is interesting that the former member for Edmonton-Strathcona on November 25, 1992 in talking about the old Law Reform Commission said: "It costs $4.9 million each year". I should point out that the Liberals always start low and aim high. They are only starting at $3 million right now. Who is to know where the cost of this commission is going to go? I come back to the member's comments: "It costs $4.9 million each year. It has five full time commissioners and"-believe it or not-"a staff of 36. That is a lot of staff and a lot of commissioners, and it costs a lot of money. It is my belief that in Canada we have created too many commissions, too many boards and in a certain way we have devalued Parliament".

What is really scary is that the situation of creating too many commissions and getting things out of the control of parliamentarians was started by the Liberals and the Conservatives attempted to terminate it in their feeble little way. Now that the Liberals are back, guess what? We have the re-creation of yet another commission. Terrific.

"I would rather see", the member said, and this reflects the comments of the member for Calgary North, "work of this nature done by parliamentary committees-. I say to my colleagues in response, we have had an independent agency that has done a lot of good work but it is time we ourselves did this work and brought some prestige back to Parliament. Let us not devalue Parliament by giving its role to outsiders".

Reflecting on the most recent legislation by this Liberal government, it does devalue the whole role of Parliament and parliamentarians. It just treats this place like a rubber stamp. When the Liberals are not getting their own way they simply bring in the pile driver of closure to make sure that it gets through, as witness the reintroduction of this piece of legislation.

The member said: "We can do that independent work. There is also a fiscal argument here. It is an expenditure of $5 million a year. We have had a deficit over the past years of roughly $30 billion a year,"-and of course it has gone up since then-"now $34.6 billion has to be borrowed. We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on that money each year".

In parenthesis I point out to all the Liberals present that their government, in the life of this government, will increase the annual interest charge on the debt that they have accumulated by $11 billion a year. It is an increase. That is only the difference between what the interest charge was when this government came in. When these people are kicked out of office in 1997, they will have added an annual interest charge of $11 billion a year to service the debt, yet they are perfectly prepared to spend another $3 million a year.

The member went on: "We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on the money each year. It is a vicious cycle. The government has to take a hard look at where we spend our money. Some of this work will be contracted out but there will be a net saving".

The point of my speech today very simply is that this government did not learn anything. The Liberals were booted out for a nine year period when there were people here who tinkered around the edges. They really did not get anything done but at least they understood that we cannot spend money we do not have. Those

people on the other side of the House to this day still do not understand that basic concept.

There was an interesting article in the November 21, 1995 Financial Post in which Deborah McCorkell-Hoy, director of the law reform division of the Department of Justice had some really interesting comments. I quote from the article:

When the commission was set up, McCorkell-Hoy said, everyone agreed that it should be as independent as possible, but it "needs to be tied to the needs of Canadians".

To put that into effect, the bill creates a 25 member advisory council "to advise on the strategic direction of the commission and review its performance".

As well, specific reform projects will be monitored and advised by panels of expert specialists.

McCorkell-Hoy points out several areas that could attract business partners and funding:

Intellectual property and its relationship to new information technologies.

Biotechnology, a subject in which law reform "has tremendous implications for the economy of the country, and yet the law is unknown".

Well, of course, we are dealing with the Liberal government.

Federal financial regulatory mechanisms, especially in international commercial law.

Since the bill gives the commission a wide mandate to develop "new approaches to, and new concepts of, law", it's not inconceivable that other federal areas such as taxation, corporate law, labour law, unemployment insurance or immigration could be research targets.

Right there, in the words of this official from the justice department, we have a very clear and very specific indication that this bill is being set up to reward the government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is what it is all about. It is a make work project.

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

I do not know about selfish, but it certainly defies the whole idea of-

[Law Commission Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

Is there such a thing as Liberal logic? Well, these things do happen.

The minister states that the commission will operate at arm's length. That is really magic because there is a little discrepancy here. He wants it to be independent, but he wants it to do what he wants it to do.