Deborah Grey

[Rcmp Investigation, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal's top Quebec fundraiser, Pierre Corbeil, appeared in court to answer charges of criminal influence peddling.

However, questions remain for the government. Who actually leaked the government documents and lists so that Mr. Corbeil could have them? When we asked this question of the Prime Minister on October 9, he said he was going to have a chat with his ethics counsellor and get him to look into it. It is now nearly a month later.

Could the Prime Minister tell us what the ethics counsellor had to say about this deal?

[Points Of Order, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no recollection of saying anything. I do not know what this member is talking about. If for any reason I said something about animalistic, I will apologize—

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure Canadians will be glad of that.

Albertans are wondering where is Waldo. I do not want to hear from the prime minister or the environment minister or the deputy prime minister or anyone else. I want to ask a question of the senior minister from Alberta. Will the justice minister stand up for her constituents and will she stand up—

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an issue for all Canadians but specifically in the Alberta oil patch. Albertans themselves are worried about an energy tax.

The countdown to Kyoto is on. We would think the top Alberta Liberal would have said something by now, but in fact she is hiding and she is hiding in the House.

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are concerned about is making sure that they do not get a jump at the pump when this deal is signed, and the minister has already promised it.

The Liberal minister for Alberta has been as quiet as a little mouse on this, not even a squeak about the Kyoto deal. The entire oil patch is worried and the Liberals have not ruled out an energy tax. The minister has not done a thing to calm their fears. Albertans want to hear finally from their top Liberal.

Let me ask the justice minister this. Will the justice minister tell us her position on any energy or environmental tax?

[The Environment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, he can talk about Reform research all he likes, but those numbers came from the Conference Board of Canada.

Canadians are sick and tired of these non-answers. We are 32 days away from this conference and Canadians do not know what is going on. It is shame that the price of cabinet solidarity has to affect the price of gas.

I ask the prime minister one more time, do not run and hide, do not dodge or weave from the question, just answer it. How much cash will Kyoto cost?

[The Environment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister says we need to make a contribution, and we do. However, the countdown to Kyoto is on. There are only 32 days before the conference starts and Canada is the only country in the G-7 that has not released a position yet. Maybe the reasons the Liberals will not make the plan public is that then we will find out exactly how much Kyoto will cost.

I ask the prime minister again will the jump at the pump be 10 cents, 20 cents or 30 cents a litre?

[The Environment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Liberals said that their greenhouse gas emission plan would “incur costs”. In today's Globe and Mail government officials say that those costs could in fact eat up any budget surplus that there may be.

How is the prime minister going to pay for Kyoto, raise taxes or raid the surplus?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, not just technically or legally but this Parliament because we are in charge of the Criminal Code must make sure that we send out the signal loudly and clearly that if someone blows over .08 as it is now, then that is the way it is. It is not a good thing nor is it suggestible to try and work through the court system like that. We could talk about individual rights and everything else, but it seems pretty clear to me that if we break the law, we break the law.

That is about as zero tolerant as you could get. If you blow over whatever the limit is, and the member talked about changing it to .04 and I could certainly live with that, but once you go over whatever the law is, you break the law. If you break the law, you pay the consequences. We should not be tolerant over and above whatever the limit is that we set.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the specifics of the question, I see a pretty frightening pattern. The PC members are always talking about things being initiated in the Senate. We have been talking with the government about initiating bills in the Senate. I am not sure if I see some sort of pattern developing here in that the PCs have a large representation in the Senate and they are going to start trying that process as well.

I am in favour of anybody who can do anything to help solve the problem. As the legitimately elected people in the House of Commons who have the mandate and authority to be here, it is wise that things go through this House. If senators want to agree with that, or if there is something particular they think they need to bring in, that is fine. But let us not politicize the Senate any more than it already is.

Speaking about sentencing, deterrents and alternatives, they already have it in the justice system and they do not seem to be working. Somebody says “Well, I will just do my three hours of watching these videos” and stuff like that. The point is to deter them before they are in there. We can look at all kinds of alternative sentencing, but do not let them get to that point. Once we start wiggling around within the justice system, the member knows all the things that can happen and all the alternatives that can happen.

His point is that we already have that and it simply is not working. It needs to go beyond that. Let us catch them when they are younger. Let us show them that they can be scared straight before they even start. It seems a whole lot wiser to me. I am sure everyone would agree that if we can catch them young, we can catch them well.