Deborah Grey

[Taxation, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, April is tax month and Canadians are getting a first hand look at what three and a half years of Liberal government have done to their pay cheques.

Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, the average Canadian family has suffered a pay cut of $3,000, thanks to the government's high tax policies. We are getting letters from seniors on fixed incomes who are having to pay taxes for the first time in five years.

How can the government claim that it has not raised taxes when older Canadians on fixed incomes are having to cut a cheque to the tax man for the first time in years?

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that victims are given due notice. They want a little more than due notice. Victims must come first. They have the right to be informed. They have the right to have their voices heard at any stage in the judicial process. They also have the right to be protected from intimidation, harassment and abuse. Those fundamental rights must be reflected in the justice system.

Therefore, I ask the justice minister once again: Will he pass a victims bill of rights, which is an umbrella operation over far more than just the Criminal Code? Will he pass the victims bill of rights before the next election? Is he going to pass the bill or just simply pass the buck?

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says it was discussed at length last week. We would lay off if the Liberals would give us some answers finally.

The prevailing attitude among criminal defence lawyers, prosecutors and judges is that victims have no place in the criminal justice system. They think that giving victims rights would introduce emotion and bias into the criminal justice system. They think that giving victims a role in the court process will jeopardize the right of the accused to a fair trial. Who is paying a price here in terms of emotionalism and some sort of bias?

I want to ask the government's top lawyer this question, and I would appreciate an answer. Does he think that giving victims any rights would compromise the fairness of the judicial system? Is that not the least he could do for victims?

[Rights Of Victims, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with about two weeks to go before an election is called, the justice minister is working hard to change his image across the country. He is trying to portray himself as tough on crime, really in favour and the champion of victims rights. It is going to take more than words to convince the victims, that is for sure.

The charter of rights has many sections that deal with the rights of the accused, but none that deal with the rights of victims. Something is wrong with this picture and it needs to change.

Let me ask the justice minister this. Will he commit today to passing a victims bill of rights before the election is called? Yes or no.

[Distinct Society, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, old line politicians still do not get it. Canadians do not like and they do not want distinct society entrenched in the Constitution. A recent poll shows that only 34 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec think distinct society will work and will solve the national unity problem.

Any concept that appears to promote the inequality of citizens or provinces or appears to give special status to any province will be rejected. The defeat of the Meech Lake accord by the provinces and the Charlottetown accord by the people attest to that.

"A vision for the Future of Canada", the Reform Party's 20:20 proposals, promotes equality through a better balance of power between the federal government, the provinces and the people through a combination of decentralization and democratic reforms. These reforms address Quebec's concerns within the confederation.

These changes can be accomplished without federal-provincial constitutional wrangling. What is needed is a federal government that is willing to initiate them.

What part of no do these guys not understand?

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why victims groups right across the country have been so concerned about the talk and precious little action they have seen from the government here. They are not sensing any sense of comfort, I do not think. The victims we have spoken with are frustrated. They are frightened that the likes of Clifford Olson are going to harass them again and again.

There is no justice in a minister who calls himself justice to say that he is looking after these people and victims rights. On Bill C-37, only two months later after those small changes to the Young Offenders Act did he have to send another crew out across the country because his original bill did not do it. He did not do it right the first time.

We have unequivocally always said in the Reform Party that victims should come first, unconditionally. Yesterday the minister seemed to agree with us. Now I am really wondering if he does agree with us totally that victims always should take precedence over the rights of the criminal unconditionally.

Is he truly serious about putting victims rights first, unconditionally, or is it more simple talk before an election?

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to talk for a year and then to do something on the eve of a federal election. Surely the victims and the people across the country can understand how phoney this facade is. It is ridiculous.

Victims across the country are not laughing about this and I do not think they feel any comfort today. People like Debbie Mahaffy, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Pricilla de Villiers, Theresa McCuaig are not feeling any comfort about a justice minister who will stand up and talk about what a great job his government has done. He said there is one reason for the justice committee to get together today and it

is because he asked it to. I would like to know what his motive is. It is simply because of the letters that spell the word election.

What will it be, will the minister entrench victims rights in law or is this simply pre-election posturing, as we have seen so many times? Do it. Do it. Do it.

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one would almost think there was an election on the horizon or something like that. I know it is ironic, but the justice minister, after having been terribly soft on crime for three and a half years, all of a sudden is trying to pass himself off as the champion of victims rights across the country. The people will not be fooled.

If the Liberals are really serious about putting victims first, will the justice minister commit here, now, today to passing Reform's victims bill of rights before the next election? Do not just think about it, do it.

[Government Expenditures, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is anyone in the country who would buy that kind of mathematics except the people who are sitting on his own benches.

He talks about reconciling figures. The Canadian public are trying to reconcile the facts and the facts are these: Regional development is over budget. Canadian heritage is over budget and that is no surprise. Industry is over budget. Natural resources is over budget. Foreign affairs is over budget. The beat goes on. The only thing that the Liberals have managed to cut is funding to health care and education. Over and over again we see it.

Let me try one more time. How can the Prime Minister and the government justify slashing health and education by $7 billion when his government departments are $8 billion over budget? Plain and simple, what is the difference?

[Government Expenditures, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the minister to make things look good when the government continues to bring in billions of dollars more of revenue every year. Taxes go up all the time but it just does not solve the problem. The budget estimates simply do not lie.

The Liberals had a choice and they chose to cut health care and education by $7 billion. Regional development spending should have been $567 million but instead it has ballooned to over$1.2 billion. That is a difference of $.5 billion. How many hospital beds would that $.5 million have allowed to remain open instead of the kind of nonsense we see happening here all the time? These people chose handouts over health care.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why does the government care so much more about regional development than health care and education where it has made huge cuts of$7 billion?