Jim Abbott

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is really interesting. According to the news reports we are getting there is serious concern on the part of law enforcement people. One report from Victoria says a judge last week examined a charge and

commented he hoped the new drug prosecutor learned how to spell marijuana correctly.

Was the justice minister made aware of the very close political ties between the revenue minister and the Victoria law firms before the appointments were made?

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, both the justice minister and the revenue minister continue to trot out words like competence and merit with respect to the government's latest patronage appointments in the B.C. justice system.

There is no possible justification for turning aside a firm with 20 years experience in narcotics prosecution in favour of inexperienced political friends.

Can the justice minister explain to the House specifically how the new firms in the revenue minister's Victoria riding have more competence and merit than the firm the government terminated?

[Department Of Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in news reports from Victoria an experienced undercover officer commenting on the justice department's termination of a firm with 20 years of drug prosecution experience has said:

It is a complete and utter farce. We are losing very experienced and very knowledgeable prosecutors who are used to dealing at all levels of drug enforcement. This is a definite blow to drug enforcement.

Public safety should never be compromised by political patronage. It begs the question: was the justice minister made aware of the very close connections between the revenue minister's political interests and the appointed firms?

[Department Of Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the administration of the justice ministry, the minister insisted yesterday that "when the government goes to the legal profession to hire agents to help us with legal cases, the fundamental criteria is competence and merit".

That being the case, can the justice minister explain to Canadians the appointments recently made in the revenue minister's riding in Victoria. How does the appointment of three firms with little or no experience in drug prosecution and the termination of a firm with 20-years' experience fit his stated criteria of competence and merit?

[Privilege, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my error. I rise on a point of privilege.

Never before have the rights of members been so blatantly abused as they were today. A question was asked that went directly to the administration of government concerning the awarding of legal contracts for acting crown prosecutors. While I accept the fact that the allegations of patronage in the awarding-

[Privilege, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Never before have the rights-

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that an experienced undercover officer has said that this is a complete and utter farce. He has said that this is a definite blow to drug enforcement in the area we are talking about.

Did the justice minister have any prior knowledge of the excessive contributions to the revenue minister in the election campaign prior to making that decision?

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can redefine it this way. In making appointments of law firms to work for the justice department, my understanding is that the justice minister would go to the minister or some Liberal in that area.

Does he not think that when considerations such as I put forward come into play it calls into question the ability of the justice department to be able to put the very best law firms at the beck and call of the Canadian people, instead of it going to the drug dealers who can afford to buy the best?

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the justice minister.

Yesterday I pointed out that three law firms with very tight connections to the revenue minister had been appointed. The revenue minister has said that he was not troubled by the appearance of patronage, saying: "I am not concerned. I think merit is the primary consideration for an appointment".

Does the justice minister not think that a $4,000 contribution to the revenue minister's election campaign might have been the real consideration?

[Committees Of The House, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the examination of the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, I pointed out department estimates on vote 1 were about $10 million higher than the amount specified in the federal budget submitted in February.

The transcript will show the motion that: "We approve the estimates in principle, reconciling them with the budget" was passed unanimously. The motion to reconcile was ruled out of order and is not reflected in the minutes being tabled today.

Because the department estimates of all departments are printed before the finance minister presents his budget, we have noted there will be discrepancies between ministry estimates and the finance minister's dollar allocation to these ministries.

The solution might include Your Honour recommending to the Minister of National Revenue that he submit a reconciliation, as unanimously requested by committee members. If this was taken as precedent, your ruling would take a giant step to putting the members in charge of expenditures of taxpayers' dollars.

In summary, as a standard procedure when there is a difference between estimates and the budget, a reconciliation should be tabled by the minister when department estimates are tabled by a standing committee.