I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how can one explain such reasoning. The member opposite just said that senators are honest. I believe that parliamentarians in both chambers are all basically honest and that all of us who have been sent here by the Canadian people have an interest in doing what is best for our electors.
The member who spoke before me made certain accusations and he referred to the powers at the top and the family of those at the top. It was quite obvious that although he perhaps did not have what I would qualify as the fortitude of naming him, he wanted to describe the Prime Minister. He wanted to make-and he did, albeit in a less than totally courageous way, which he did not have the wherewithal to raise-accusations against the Prime Minister.
I want to bring to the attention of members an editorial in today's Toronto Star . The Toronto Star states: ``Phoney scandal over satellite TV''. This is the issue the member wanted to bring across.
In Ottawa, the opposition parties, with an almost audible cry of "gotcha", think they finally have a winning issue, one that will stick to the Prime Minister's teflon hide. It is not gun control, deficit, social spending cutbacks or Quebec. No, it is direct-to-home satellite TV.
The Liberals overturned the CRTC decision last summer granting an effective monopoly to one company, Expressvu, to bring satellite TV to people's homes. The commission decision, made without a public hearing, had prompted howls, not only from the competition, Power DirecTv, a subsidiary of Power Corp., but also from consumers and editorialists.
In response, the Liberals established a panel of three people of impeccable credentials, all former deputy ministers, to review the CRTC decision. They concluded that the CRTC had goofed, and called for an opening up of direct-to-home satellite TV to competition. The cabinet concurred.
The opposition complaint is not with the substance of the government's decision; rather, it is that Power Corporation's president, André Desmarais, is the Prime Minister's son-in-law.
I will read the last line as we approach question period. It states: "The cabinet's authority to overturn CRTC rulings in cases such as this was specifically envisioned by this legislation introduced by the Conservative government, of which Bouchard was a member. As for the Prime Minister's own role, he declared a conflict and stayed out of the decision." Case closed.
There have been no fewer than four such editorials. Did members across outline this? No. They continued today to make what I would qualify as less than honest comments impugning the integrity of the Prime Minister.