Deborah Grey

[Indian Affairs, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have an example. The First Nations accountability coalition is comprised mainly of treaty Indians who receive old age pension cheques. They are now able to speak out because they are not totally beholden to the chief and council for their survival. Their pension cheques have given them a real voice and real power for the first time in their lives. These people are demanding financial accountability of their own leaders. I am not asking this, they are asking.

Some of them have been threatened and beaten; some have had their houses shot at. When they complained, the minister's own

officials in Saskatchewan told the coalition: "Do not take it personally; it is happening all over". This is not good enough.

When will the minister finally give authority to the auditor general to look into these complaints of financial mismanagement? When will he make sure that aboriginals are treated fairly and equally in this country?

[Indian Affairs, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House the minister of Indian affairs said that he could not send treaty entitlements directly to grassroots Indian people who live on reserves. He said that is not the way his government deals with other levels of government.

Ottawa routinely sends individual entitlements and benefits directly to other Canadians, including GST rebate cheques, child benefit cheques, pension cheques and so on.

Why is the minister afraid to give treaty Indians a choice about how they want to receive their treaty entitlements, either directly from the government or from the chief in council? Why is he denying Indians the same rights as every other Canadian?

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we hope that when that decision is made it is a practical decision, not a political one.

There is a human cost that is paid every time we send our troops into theatres of action. They are the best in the world and we support our military without reservation. The government, however, must not over extend our military reach. Many military analysts are saying that Canadians and Canadian troops should not be supporting another military engagement.

The Prime Minister knows that Canadians need to make an informed decision regarding committing Canadian troops to Zaire. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he plans to scale back our commitments in Bosnia and Haiti?

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the safety of our troops should be one of the government's top priorities.

We were invited into Bosnia and Haiti. Yet Canadians still suffered over 120 casualties in Bosnia, including 12 deaths.

Rwanda, as the Prime Minister said, is still refusing military troops and the armed forces. Eritrea is opposing our involvement and South Africa is no longer willing to commit troops, as we understand it. It is not clear how welcome the Canadian troops are.

Will the Prime Minister ensure to Canadians that he will not commit Canadian troops beyond the immediate relief team there already until African countries agree to and support our involvement there?

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's aid mission in Zaire seems to be all over the map. The immediate crisis is over. We know that and are glad for that, but humanitarian aid is still required, as was just mentioned.

The disaster assistance relief team is stuck in Uganda and our soldiers have not even been allowed past the airport in Rwanda.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House just what our mission to Central Africa is and what efforts he is making to ensure the safety of our Canadian troops?

[Child Care, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our recommendation is that parents who choose to raise their kids at home up to age 12 should be celebrated, not just the preschool ones he talks about.

The average Canadian family pays a staggering 46 per cent of its income in taxes. Children across the country are living in families where both parents are stressed out from having to work nights and weekends to pay for this Liberal government's spending habits.

Canadians have suffered a $3,000 pay cut since this government took office in 1993, and the finance minister knows that.

Instead of being satisfied with the status quo of high taxes, why will the minister not simply balance the budget and then give Canadian families some much deserved, much needed tax relief?

[Child Care, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about campaign 2000, we have our own plan for that as well, and that is that every Canadian family would have a tax break of $2,000 by the year 2000. I think that would be far more practical.

The Reform's fresh start platform makes Canadian families a priority. It will increase the spousal exemption by over $2,500 and extend child care deductions to all parents, including those who choose to raise their kids at home. That was my initial question and I did not hear anything like an answer for that, and so I will just ask it again.

What sort of specific tax relief does the minister have to offer Canadian families?

First, why will he not consider raising the spousal exemption, which would be a fairly simple thing to do, and second, to extend the child care deduction to all parents?

[Child Care, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since national child day is on Wednesday, the government should take a look at a recent Angus Reid survey. It shows that 57 per cent of parents with young children work simply to make ends meet. A majority of those same people would like to have the freedom to have one parent stay at home with their kids if they could afford to do that.

This government needs to make Canadian families a priority. It needs to lesson their tax burden and give parents back some choice in how they raise their own children.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why will the government not convert the child care deduction into a tax credit and extend it to all parents with children 12 years or younger, including those parents who choose to raise their kids at home?

[Ethics, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, all the bluster and bragging in the world will not solve the problem. Ethics are a public matter and Canadians deserve to know what the Prime Minister's so-called higher standards are.

In the last election the Liberals promised to restore integrity to our parliamentary institutions and make government open and transparent. I think I heard those words several times during the campaign.

It is very difficult to see how secret ethical guidelines square with the Prime Minister's red book promises. Will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promise and release the guidelines for these higher standards for Liberal cabinet ministers?

[Ethics, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has bragged repeatedly over the years that he has ethical guidelines for cabinet ministers that go well beyond this code of conduct for public office holders, and now he says they have just mentioned it and had a chat about it.

Nobody seems to know what these guidelines are, where they are or whether they exist at all. If the Prime Minister does have these ethical guidelines that he talks about, there is no good reason why they should not be made public.

Again, does the Prime Minister have a set of guidelines for his cabinet ministers who have higher ethical standards than even the code for public officers which he has talked about? And if so, why in the world will he not release them to the public?