Grant McNally

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last November in Maple Ridge, Mrs. Colleen Findlay, an active member of the community and mother of three children, was tragically murdered in her own home at the age of 39. Her car and other items were stolen and her house was set on fire. A 15 year old boy has been charged with first degree murder. This young offender reportedly has had many brushes with the law and is well known to local police.

The system under the Young Offenders Act failed Mrs. Findlay. It failed her family and it failed our community.

Those offenders who refuse to take responsibility for their actions must be held to account and communities must be protected from individuals who are a danger to our society.

The next hearing for this accused young offender will take place on February 10. Crown prosecutors and community members continue to call for the individual to be tried in adult court due to the seriousness of the crime, but there is no guarantee that this will happen in this case or in any other, despite community consensus.

Last February the Liberals passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which will come into force this April, but even if the new law were in place at the time of this tragedy, it would not guarantee an adult trial.

The law merely presumes that adult sentences would be given to young people 14 and older who are found guilty of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, or who are repeat, serious violent offenders, but it does not legislate it. Even in these cases a judge must first consider the least restrictive sentence and only impose adult sentencing as a last resort.

The government leaves these decisions up to the courts when it should be putting the safety and security of citizens first and enshrining such changes in law. Protection of the public should be the government's top priority, but victims and their families unfortunately know firsthand that it is not.

Mrs. Findlay's friends and family are collecting signatures for a petition which states:

That, society needs to be protected from all individuals, including young offenders, who commit first or second degree murder. Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact or amend legislation so that young offenders charged with first or second degree murder are automatically raised to adult court and receive adult sentences.

I will ask the parliamentary secretary this evening not just to remind us all about the government's review process, and not to admit once again that it leaves these decisions up to the court. We know that. We have heard it over and over again.

I want to challenge the parliamentary secretary to put down his prepared answer and give this question the consideration that the victim's family deserves. Will the justice minister change the law to ensure that all 15 year olds charged with murder are tried in adult court?

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before the Christmas break I had the honour to present a number of deserving constituents from my riding of Dewdney—Alouette with the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal, recognizing their outstanding achievements, and contribution to our communities and to our country.

The recipients included: Dr. Jack Freeman, Wesley Johnson, Mayor Sylvia Pranger and Ella Pretty from the Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs area; Linnea Battel, Terry Gidda, Bill Harris, Victor Hollister, Eleanor Lobb and Catherine Marcellus from the Mission area; and Lorraine Bates, Crystal Boser, Tom Cameron, Lola Chapman, Carl Durksen, Bernice Gehring, Chief Peter James, Sheila Nickols, Mike Suddaby and Bonnie Telep from the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows area.

On behalf of the people of Dewdney—Alouette, we thank each one of them for their endless hours of service that help to make our communities a better place to live.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague from Calgary left off. For a number of reasons I too will not be supporting the Kyoto accord as it comes forward in the House tomorrow.

Many reasons have been outlined by my colleagues throughout the last few days of debate. I want to reiterate, as the time for debate draws to a close, that this may be the last word in the debate in the House. However, it will certainly not be the last word on the topic. It is just the beginning.

As the government moves ahead on ratifying Kyoto without a plan, without cost projections as to the cost to our economy and to our hard working taxpayers from coast to coast, it will hear further from people about how bad the plan is.

It will come to light that the government is sadly out of tune with this plan just as it has been with the gun registry; a billion dollar cost overrun for a plan that was supposed to be $2 million. It is now hitting close to a billion dollars and no end in sight in terms of that program.

We had the HRDC scandal which again highlighted the incompetence of the Liberals in managing taxpayer dollars. These are not government funds. These are dollars held in trust by the government to be implemented wisely.

Over and over again Canadians have seen the Liberal government squander their hard earned tax dollars on programs that it has said would be effective. However, when put to the test and reviewed by the Auditor General, the programs have been shown to be sadly lacking. How can Canadians possibly trust this group to now say that it will implement the Kyoto accord? It is simply beyond the belief of most Canadians.

The most valuable commodity that a government has is trust. The Liberal government has lost the trust of Canadians through the repeated scandals in which it has been involved. We have seen repeated failures and incompetence demonstrated year after year in this place.

I am speaking out on behalf of the people of Dewdney—Alouette. Some people have phoned or e-mailed me who are in support of the accord. These people are very few in comparison to those who are opposed to the accord.

In particular, a number of people from the cement manufacturers have contacted me and have asked me the following questions. How can the government implement the accord without a plan and without a projection of what it will cost not only their industry and the province of British Columbia, but the entire country? What will the accord mean for their families if they lose their jobs? How will these people cope if they have to pay higher costs for heating and if they have to bear the burden of the government's mismanagement on this file?

It is simply not acceptable for the government to ask once again for the trust of Canadians on this file. The government has lost the trust of Canadians.

As recently as today, we had the former finance minister say to the media that more time was needed to debate Kyoto. Yet today we were faced with a closure vote. It is my understanding that the government wants to scurry out of here as quickly as it can before the end of government business on Friday, another day on which we could have debated this further, another day on which other members could state their views on this important issue.

My colleague from Red Deer eloquently laid out a very detailed plan outlining the Canadian Alliance's opposition to Kyoto. Our leader also laid out his plan today and the reasons why the opposition would not stop here today. The debate may be ending quickly but the groundswell of opposition by Canadians to the accord, as they find out the details on how it will impact them, is just beginning.

It is just beginning and people across the country will pay the price unfortunately, once again because of the Liberal government. The Prime Minister is ramming this deal through without consulting with the provinces, without an implementation plan and without any idea of what it will cost in terms of the number of jobs and the cost to the treasury. That is simply not acceptable.

It is time for a change. Canadians deserve better. The Alliance will stand against the accord and the government for presenting no alternative until we take its place on that side of the House.

[Government Spending, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be starting their 12 days of giving a little early this year. Tonight Parliament will vote on giving the government over $5.5 billion to reward its unprecedented record of financial mismanagement and indefensible incompetence.

As late as last week, the government denied opposition suggestions of a $1 billion cost overrun in the failed gun registry. The Auditor General has confirmed what the Liberals have been trying so desperately to hide, that they have spent too much already and should not get one more red cent.

According to the justice minister the Liberals may have to get even more creative with their secretive spending to avoid losing a confidence vote tonight. This will not change the fact that this scandal will cost Canadian taxpayers 500 times what they were promised.

The Liberals' out of control spending has been funding their scandals for years. They have forced taxpayers to pay for Shawinigate, the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle, the EI ripoff and the advertising sponsorship scam to name just a few.

As the Liberals vote tonight to give themselves more to spend, once again it is Canadians who will be stuck with the bill.

[Young Offenders, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago in my riding, Colleen Findlay, a 39 year old mother of three, was tragically murdered in her home. Her car was stolen and her house was set on fire. A 15 year old has been charged with first degree murder. Crown prosecutors and community members are calling for him to be raised to adult court.

Will the justice minister change the law to ensure that all 15 year olds charged with murder are tried in adult court?

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the government House leader's references that he made earlier you have already ruled that the amendment is receivable by the Chair. You ruled that in this place and we count on you for that decision.

I would say to the government House leader that I disagree with his interpretation of what he said the amendment does. It is not a hoist amendment. It amends the motion. That is what an amendment does. An amendment adds something to a motion. It may change it in a particular way. The House is free to vote for the amendment or against it when it is time for a vote to be called. It does not hoist the motion at all.

I disagree with the government House leader's argument and ask, Mr. Speaker, that your previous ruling on the amendment stand, be accepted, and that we continue debate on the amendment.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 27th, 2002]

That is not a point of order. That is debate.

[Young Offenders Act, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, in Maple Ridge, Colleen Findlay, an active member of the community and a mother of three children, was tragically murdered in her own home. The family's car and other items were stolen before the house was set on fire. A 15 year old boy has been charged with first degree murder. This young offender has reportedly had brushes with the law and is well known to local police.

This preventable tragedy once again highlights the need for the Liberal government to make substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act. The system has failed Mrs. Findlay, it has failed her family, and it has failed our community. Those offenders who refuse to take responsibility for their actions must be held to account and communities must be protected from individuals who are a danger to our safety.

On behalf of all my colleagues I wish to offer our prayers and thoughts of sympathy to Jim Findlay and his family at this most difficult of times.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my previous comments and make a further point.

The finance minister came to committee yesterday and talked about the economic update of the country and how the economy was doing. I did not get a chance to ask him questions then but the point I would have made to him at that meeting would have been that during the time the government was dealing with deficits and cutting health care, education and social service spending, it kept in place the grants and contributions scheme. The government did not cut any of those dollars while it cut dollars to essential services in the country.

What has been revealed now is that the government has continued to keep the schemes in place to pay off dollars to its friends. It is unbelievable that it could continue and would be ongoing had this information not started to come to light. We wonder how much information is out there that needs to be explored.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched upon some very important points in his speech.

Although it has not been mentioned in debate today, I think back to something which I mentioned in this place and I will mention it again. It goes back to 1997 when I was a newly elected member.

I remember a news story of an incident regarding a Liberal fundraiser named Pierre Corbeil. Somehow he got hold of a list of companies in Quebec that were receiving government grants or were about to get approval for government grants. He basically went to those companies and shook them down for donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. They had to come up with a donation of $10,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada. If they did not give this donation to the Liberal Party, they would not receive the grant. This is what was alleged, charges were brought forward and he was convicted of influence peddling.

I remember at the time thinking that this was a very strange occurrence but it seems that it possibly was the tip of the iceberg. This has gone ahead through the courts, the individual has been charged and that is good. However as time has gone by we have seen time and time again these kinds of dubious contracts given out to people who have donated to the Liberal Party. They have received government grants and then they have given money back to the Liberal Party of Canada.

I ask my colleague, how is it that Canadians could possibly trust a group of people that have engaged in this kind of activity for nine years now to be the ones to clean up that scandalous behaviour? Does he not agree that the people of Canada, the taxpayers whose money is being squandered in this way, would want to have a new government to come into place to take care of these issues? In other words, how can the people who have been the instigators of these schemes be the ones to now say “Trust us, we will clean it up”?