Jim Abbott

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

Perhaps I could read the first two paragraphs of a column by Mike Scandiffio which appeared in the Hill Times a few weeks ago. The Senate is underfunded and needs a minimum of $4 million more to meet its objectives'', said the senator who chairs the committee which sets out the budget for the upper chamber.The budget leaves the Senate little room for ongoing operations'', said Senator Colin Kenny who chairs the internal economy committee. ``$4 million, that is a low ball figure. I would like to see $7 million''.

We get the idea of the seriousness of the motion the Reform Party has brought forward, notwithstanding the fact that we hear all sorts of laughing and chuckling from the peanut gallery over there. They do not realize that the people of Canada are sick and fed up with the notion that the senators, along with their porky pension plan, keep on going to the people of Canada and to the trough. They just do not understand that the people of Canada are fed up with the Liberals and all the old line parties constantly swilling out more and more money.

I have a question for the member. The motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate estimates. Its purpose is to put pressure on the Senate to make it account for the $40 million of spending. We would need a majority in the House to indicate that we are prepared to vote down the Senate funds if it refuses to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

I realize that he and I are just members of a caucus. He does not have an official capacity in the Bloc Quebecois, at least none that I am aware of. I would like to ask him, though, what the Bloc position is on this point. Does he agree that in fact the Board of Internal Economy of the Senate should be brought before the standing committee to account for its $40 million so that the people of Canada have a legitimate say into the expenditures?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

I am sorry. You are right, Mr. Speaker. We have had difficulty with that word today, haven't we? I understand completely.

I would like to invite my colleague from Kingston and the Islands to stand and state the position of his party. It seems as though there has been a complete vacuum-we are talking about Liberals-of input by the Liberals. They know full well if they stand in this House they are going to be asked again and again: "Do you support the concept that we would permit 40 million taxpayers' dollars to go to the Senate without any accountability?" I would like the hon. member to stand up and make a speech about that.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, just before I make my comments I would like to invite, if he has the courage-

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

You are insulting the people of Alberta.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague is also aware that within the time of this Parliament there was actually a move by Progressive Conservative senators to get an increase in their research budget.

I do not know what they would be researching. It became very clear that the reason Conservative senators were asking for an increase in their research budget was they wanted to tap into the Senate research dollars and cents so that Progressive Conservative senators could use their budget for the benefit of a loan to Progressive Conservatives that remain in this Chamber. The Conservative Party had the same arrogant attitude the current government has and it was wiped down to two seats in the last election

Again it is a question of accountability. I am sure anybody who would go along with the idea in this case of 40 million Canada taxpayer dollars to be used at the whim and will of senators and particularly to divert these research dollars form the Progressive Conservative senators to the lonely two in the back row here, any Canadian of right thinking, would realize this is obscenity of the first order.

When will the Liberal government wake up to the fact that it has a responsibility Canadians for how taxpayer dollars are spent?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, again I make note, even in the light of your comments, that I doubt very much that we will get any Liberals on their feet in the House today to defend that they are not prepared to hold the Senate accountable for spending $40 million without accountability to the Canadian people.

It is quite shameful that there is no accountability to the Canadian people. I lay it completely at the doorstep of the Liberal majority government. There will not be one more member of the Liberal Party who will stand up because they know it is indefensible.

We also know they will not permit a vote on this. They will not give unanimous consent to make this motion votable because it would be too embarrassing to them and too embarrassing to their friends.

On the issue of accountability, I notice in today's Maclean's the following brief comment: ``In 1920 the Senate protective services took over security for the Senate side of the Parliament buildings. At that time there were only three guards, each working eight hours a day, seven days a week''.

Today there are 78 personnel, although remaining unarmed, who rely heavily on modern technology. We can understand there might have to be guards in the Senate considering its obscene performance recently over the GST where senators were yelling and ranting and raving and carrying on with kazoos. Maybe that was why we needed the number of guards there.

The point is from 1920 when we had three guards working seven days a week, eight hours a day, and yet today there are 78 personnel in security over there, this increase has never been accounted for. It has never been justified to the Canadians who pay the bills.

I am sure my colleague would agree with me. The people on the opposite side, the Liberals and their predecessors, the Conservatives, same thing, Liberal-Tory, same old story, are not prepared to make the other chamber accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. It is shameful.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, there must be some reason that not only this Prime Minister, but Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau and all of the prime ministers before them from the traditional parties have gone out of their way to ensure that their selected people go to the Senate.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many of these people are put there to be bagmen for the tradition parties. In other words, these people are given taxpayers' dollars to travel around the countryside, to wine and dine people to get contributions for the Liberals and Conservatives.

For example, let us look at a statement of seasonal expense allowances, travel and office expenses paid in 1993-94 for Senator Buchanan. The former premier of Nova Scotia spent $49,930 in that year travelling around the countryside. Senator Fairbairn is from Alberta. She spent $49,019. Senator Hays who, it is absolutely no secret, is a Liberal bagman going around collecting money for the Liberals, spent $42,528 on travel. One of the most interesting cases is a senator who lives in Ottawa. It could be assumed that this senator, who comes from Ottawa and lives in Ottawa, would not have any expenses. Senator Kenny spent $29,328 going around Canada collecting money for the old line parties.

There is absolutely no possible way that any Liberal will stand up to be counted in the House today. They realize how absolutely, totally disgusting the process is. These people were appointed by today's Prime Minister and by Brian Mulroney. The traditional parties have continually appointed people to the upper chamber, given them an expense account and told them to go out and collect money for our political party.

I am sure the member would agree with me that this is an absolutely reprehensible practice that must be stopped. But how can it be stopped if these people will not even be accountable for the $40 million that the Senate is currently spending? It is quite reprehensible.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre got up and displayed her ignorance of this issue. Then the member for Vancouver Quadra got up and expressed his knowledge of this issue. The reason the Liberals are not putting anyone up is the difficulty the member for Vancouver Quadra got into.

Because this motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate estimates we pointed out the purpose of this was to put pressure on the Senate to make it account for the $40 million or so of spending. We do need a majority in this House to approve spending. We asked the member for Vancouver Quadra for his perspective.

It was very instructive that he was not prepared to the state the obvious, that the people of Canada should have some kind of control over the amount of money being spent by the upper Chamber, that the people of Canada have a right to know these things. He would not admit it.

I take the member for Vancouver Quadra as being an honourable gentleman. He waffled and he side stepped and he gave all sorts of soft answers. Even when we tried putting a very precise question to him, as did a member from the Bloc, the member would not answer the question.

Would the member for Fraser Valley West agree that the real reason the members of the Liberal Party, the people who are in control of the government, will not put up any speakers is they are afraid they will be seen in the hypocritical position they are taking on this issue? Would he agree they are not prepared to stand up and be counted in this House to answer whether this House as the elected people of Canada, responsible to the people of Canada, not also exercise responsibility for the $40 million currently being spent by the Senate. I suggest to my colleague the Liberals have no backbone, no courage and will not stand up again in this House on this issue.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Not too brightly.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would like to make a comment about a short speech made by the hon. Senator Edward M. Lawson in the Senate within the last week or two. He was referring to myself and I thought the House might find this interesting.

He said:

Honourable senators, I am sure that honourable senators are as sick and tired as I am of hearing statements made by Reform Party members-

One statement that is troubling me presently is a recent remark from one of our Reform MPs from British Columbia, Jim Abbott. He ventured the opinion that, of B.C.'s six senators, only one is making a visible contribution, and that is Senator Pat Carney. However, I am sure that if you asked him on what basis this statement was made, or if he had researched it, his answer would probably be, "Research? In the Reform Party we do not need research. We are encouraged to make spontaneous statements without benefit of research." Did he interview any senators as to their record of service? Did he interview Senator Perrault, who has a lifetime of service inside and outside the Senate, or Senator Austin, or Senator Marchand, or Senator St. Germain across the way? No. Did he check it out?

Any British Columbian can look in any direction, from Canada Place to the new airport, and see the fingerprints and stamp of B.C. senators who made some of those things possible.

Some hon. senators went hear, hear. I guess they woke up. Senator Lawson continues:

I, for one, am a little tired of hearing these statements by Reform Party members. I do not know if they are on a quota system, under which they are encouraged to make so many dumb statements per week or per month. In any event, these attacks come like waves-

I think I should draw to Preston Manning's attention that it is-wrong for MP Jim Abbott to be making false accusations against heterosexual senators from British Columbia.

What a speech. What does my colleague think?