Deborah Grey

[Ethics, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in fact what we said three or four days ago when those documents were tabled is that we would have a look at them and there seem to be some pretty serious discrepancies. It would be easy just to say nice try and to pass everything off as okay now, but if a public servant did this, they would be out on their ear just as simple as that.

Instead of going to a bank teller, the youth minister turned to the taxpayers for her government credit card bills. I am sure thousands of Canadians would love to have the option of an interest free loan from the Government of Canada just to make ends meet.

Why the double standard? Why is it that the youth minister and Bombardier get interest free loans while every other taxpayer has to pay the going rate?

[Ethics, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the youth minister said that her accounting was not a problem because she paid the money back within days and she actually had a cheque stapled to the form. According to the ethics counsellor,

the youth minister waited up to four months to pay these bills. There is a discrepancy here. It must be really nice. I will bet the Canadian taxpayers did not know they were bankrolling the Government of Canada's "don't pay a cent event".

Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the youth minister was allowed up to four months to pay back money owed to the taxpayers of Canada?

[Ethics, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of comfort that is to his cabinet or the Canadian public watching right now.

I sense a double standard. The former defence minister was forced to resign for a technical breach of the government's ethical guidelines. Whether the guidelines are public or private, we really do not know what they say. Cabinet ministers are supposed to know what they say but I am not sure they are entirely clear on it.

The Prime Minister stubbornly defends the youth minister who in her estimation and I think in that of the Canadian public did something worse. She admitted today in the House of Commons that it was a mistake and we appreciate that.

However, this minister knowingly signed a document on which she said these were government expenses. I will ask the Prime Minister one more time: Why is the defence minister called out on a technicality yet the youth minister is called safe for a blatant breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines and we do not even know what they say?

[Ethics, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly keen on the Prime Minister just saying the facts. I want to see the facts and I think the Canadian public wants the same.

This has been a very awkward spot. I wonder how many more cabinet ministers on the front bench are in the same position today. Maybe we should ask for a show of hands. Why would it be so

strange or incongruous that one minister would get caught in this kind of bind yet there would not be others? Maybe we should ask for a show of hands. We have seen how well some of these systems work with these imaginary guidelines.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he consulted the ethics counsellor about the youth minister's expense claims. Lo and behold, the ethics counsellor admitted that he had not seen the expense claims, that he just took people at their word.

Let me ask the Prime Minister about their word, about his word and everyone else's word. Will he come good on his word in the red book that he would have an independent ethics counsellor who is responsible and reportable to Parliament, not just to him?

[Ethics, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government puts ministers in a very awkward spot by not revealing and making public the so-called ethical guidelines for cabinet ministers. Integrity means more than just saying I am sorry after the fact.

The Prime Minister promised and promised again to restore public trust in our political institutions. Canadians deserve to see the ethical guidelines the government says it has come up with. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to hide behind imaginary parliamentary tradition.

In the interest of restoring public trust and confidence in this parliamentary institution, will the Prime Minister release his guidelines on ethics for cabinet ministers? Yes or no.

[The Economy, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to take us down the same road that we went yesterday. I will not say what I said, but the minister must have some pretty serious concerns about that.

He says that we will cut health care. Maybe now it is becoming clear to me why this minister is the finance minister and why there are some serious problems. We are talking about putting $4 billion back into health care. He has cut $3 billion. That may be why we are having such serious problems within the finance department.

The Prime Minister last weekend told delegates that once the budget was balanced his government would return to its free spending Liberal ways. The Prime Minister could lower taxes if he was willing to kick his spending habit. That is the problem.

Why does the Prime Minister think that $15 billion in the hands of government bureaucrats or politicians will do more good than those $15 billion in the hands of Canadian taxpayers?

[The Economy, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, only by tax relief are we going to see true job creation and people feeling better about themselves.

The reality Canadians are facing is this. People are working too hard to pay taxes that are too high. Paycheques are shrinking, job security is disappearing and family time is taking a back seat to overtime and tax time.

Reform will give Canadians $15 billion in tax relief, $2,000 for the average Canadian family by the year 2000, because leaving

more money in the taxpayer's pocket as the minister knows is more valuable than leaving it in the hands of a politician.

Why will the Prime Minister not give Canadians tax relief and create real, long term, sustainable jobs for Canadians?

[The Economy, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he wanted to debate the issues in the House. Let us debate the issues in the House.

The reality is that 1.5 million Canadians are still unemployed, consumer confidence has plummeted even though we have such low interest rates, and Canadian families have suffered a $3,000 pay cut since 1993. Those are the facts. He knows them, I know them. Canadians are worse off now than when the Liberals took power in 1993.

Since these three years of Liberal economic mismanagement have failed to make a dent in unemployment, consumer confidence or the tax burden, why will the Prime Minister not do this: balance the budget, cut taxes and create real jobs?

[Committees Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Where do you live, Jack? Here in Ottawa? Where are your kids?.

[Points Of Order, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, because I was named, I think I only have one recourse and that is to ask you for just a few seconds of your time. If blowing a kiss to the member for London West is offensive then all I can say is, forgive me.