Jim Abbott

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, subpoenas are not issued on a whim and politicians are not above the law. We are all citizens of this country called Canada. The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy. Therefore, it is essential that we as Canada's lawmakers be subject to the laws passed by this Parliament.

A Saskatchewan court is calling upon the deputy leader of the Conservatives in the Senate to testify on corruption charges in the Devine government where he was second in command. He is avoiding court by invoking a little used privilege of MPs and senators that excuses them from answering a subpoena for 40 days before or after a session as well as during a session.

In avoiding the court order, the Tories' deputy leader is breaching Canadians' trust in a place where trust should be raised to the highest level. The Senate remains an anachronism yet it has continued to be supported by this Prime Minister.

The actions of the Tories' deputy leader has tarnished the image of all politicians. There is clearly no need to invoke immunity. It exhibits a serious abuse of privilege.

Resign Senator Berntson.

[Canadian Coast Guard, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: How responsible is it to blow away $23 million on flags while cutting $7 million from the coast guard? The Liberals are also proposing a $3.5 million lighthouse staffing budget cut to save money. Of course that is necessary because the heritage minister's unnecessary expenditures are driving it. An example is her Canada Information Office. There are information after information after information offices available to Canadians right now; $4 million on Inquiries Canada alone.

I ask again: What are this government's priorities when it gives a free hand to the heritage minister to blow money as she sees fit yet makes cuts that put people's lives at risk on the waters around Canada?

[Canadian Coast Guard, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the DFO is proposing to remove over $7 million from the Canadian Coast Guard fleet thereby putting Canadian lives at risk on the waters of Canada's west coast. However outside of its budget, as a result of the heritage minister's wild imagination, she is blowing away $23 million on her free flag program.

What are the Liberal government's priorities that it would cut funding for the coast guard while flying feel good flags?

[Telecommunications, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Her answers have been devoid of even the smallest particle of fact.

The issue is that on one side of the coin she is trying to imply to the Canadian people that the government is opposed to negative option billing; therefore, making the connection to this bill which is opposed to negative option billing as though she was supporting the bill, whereas, in fact, I have evidence that the government position was opposed to that bill. She is trying to have it both ways.

I ask her again, was her government in any way, shape or form trying to influence the members to vote against the negative option bill which was before the House, namely, Bill C-216?

[Telecommunications, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a document which appeared on a Liberal member's desk last Monday when the House was voting on the negative option bill. It appears to be on the letterhead of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It says: "Government position on Bill C-216. Third reading. Government position: No".

It may be a forgery because the minister said outside the House that she had not tried in any way to influence the members of her caucus to vote the way that her department wanted to vote, which was against the consumer and in favour of the cable companies.

My question is very simple. Is this document a forgery or was her statement a forgery?

[Prime Ministerial Appointments, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has done it yet again with the appointment of Wilfred Moore to the Senate yesterday. He has extended his unbroken streak of blatantly and cynically putting his Liberal Party interests ahead of democracy in Canada.

I do not need to talk about Mr. Moore's impeccable Liberal pedigree because the Prime Minister wants only people who would do his bidding.

Canadians should realize how the Prime Minister is perverting the Canadian democratic process. For example, Canadians assume because their elected representatives overcame strong lobbying by the heritage minister and her department that there be a ban on cable company negative option billing that the ban would come into effect but this is not so. Even as we speak the Liberal senators are being told how to vote on behalf of the heritage department, on behalf of the cable companies and against consumers. This Prime Minister wants to have his own way.

Perverting the Canadian democratic process with endless Senate appointments works against Canadians who are demanding accountability instead of Liberal manipulation.

[Telecommunications, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, not since the minister's broken GST promise has there ever been as loud a public outcry as there was against against negative option billing on the part of ordinary Canadians. It is clear, on the basis of this documentation, to anyone that the minister and her department are working hand in hand with the cable industry.

How can she deny that her government position was opposed to the negative option bill when I read here: "Government position, no?"

[Telecommunications, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, outside the House the heritage minister clearly and specifically stated that neither she nor her department lobbied Liberal backbenchers to defeat the bill on banning negative option billing by the cable companies. However, I have the minister's memo in hand which specifically endorses negative option billing and encourages Liberal members to vote against the negative option ban.

Further, I have a document on the minister's letterhead which specifically states that the members should vote no, government position, nay.

With this evidence in hand, how can the minister explain the discrepancy between what she was saying outside the House and the written evidence?

[Points Of Order, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in question period today the Minister of Canadian Heritage accused me of being a lobbyist. I am an elected member of this House. I wonder if you might find it in your power to suggest that she apologize to me for calling me a lobbyist when I am just-

[Telecommunications, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this member has become very familiar with the non-answer. She did not answer the question. Was there a lobby or was there not?

The fact is that Canada AM on Monday, September 23 quoted from a document dated September 17 from her heritage department, and again it was quoted in the Globe and Mail today. I simply ask her how in the world can she deny the existence of a lobby by either her department or her office?