Deborah Grey

[Pearson Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if that deal had gone ahead that whole process would have been finished by now and we would have had a class act airport, not simply talking about the possibility of it now.

The minister talks about due process of law. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, he used the due process of law some time ago to sue his own government, for heaven's sake. What credibility is that?

Tory patronage may have been replaced by Liberal politics but Canadian taxpayers are still paying the price and that is what they are angry about.

Instead of worrying about covering their own political assets, when will the Liberals come up with a plan that will benefit taxpayers, not Liberals, not Tories, but Canadian taxpayers?

[Pearson Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stuffed the Senate with 16 of the best Liberal yes men in the country and he still could not get Bill C-28 through the Senate. It is dead.

When will the government get the hint and realize this bill was flawed from the beginning? What part of dead does it not understand?

[Pearson Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals had kept their mitts out of the Pearson airport deal from the beginning it would have cost Canadians absolutely zero. The Prime Minister has stuffed the Senate with-

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I did use the word and I withdraw.

[Taxation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it seems fairly clear that 63 per cent of Nova Scotians, the very people the Liberals are trying to butter up to buy into this harmonization program, are not supporting it. How can the minister say every major group across the country is?

The GST still puts the financial screws to Canadians every single time they go to the cash register. Now it is causing bitterness and division instead of progress at the finance ministers meeting.

Remember how we got into this mess in the first place, Mr. Speaker, you were here: a Tory tax, a public outcry, a Liberal promise; and now crass manoeuvring by the finance minister to distract attention from his own broken promise.

Why does the minister continue to divide Canadians with this harmonization scheme? Why will he not unite Canadians by living up to the election promise to scrap, kill and abolish it? When will he do that?

[Taxation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the GST has hijacked the meeting this week of the finance ministers.

The finance ministers across the country are trying to meet to discuss true pension reform this week. Instead they have to talk about how the Liberals are pitting provinces against each other with a billion dollar GST harmonization pay-off.

My question is for the minister of the GST. If the harmonized GST is such a great and fair deal, why are 63 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia dead against it?

[The Late Hon. George Hees, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada. I extend our sincere condolences to George Hees' daughters, his grandchildren, his great grandchild and to the many friends I am sure he has built up over the generations.

George's service to his country was automatic, whether it was serving the country during World War II or whether it was serving in the House as he did for nearly four decades.

George Hees was first elected in a 1950 byelection and won every election from then on until his retirement in 1988 with the exception of the 1963 election. Imagine running and winning every single time. That is an amazing legacy in itself.

He served in the cabinets of John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney. He proved to be a very capable and effective minister and administrator.

In 1988, after his retirement, he was named Prime Minister Mulroney's personal advisor and ambassador at large, overseeing

the transportation, storage and distribution of Canada's food aid programs in the third world.

Although he was offered a Senate appointment several times, he always declined. That is something which is very remarkable. Even though he was offered a no-cut contract, he always declined because he thought there were other things he could be doing.

Mr. Hees was popular and respected by members of all political parties. When he retired from the House he said that serving in the House of Commons is the finest profession any Canadian could have because of the association with MPs from all parties and that everyone is here because they are trying to do a job for the people of Canada. That is really noble. It is certainly the reason we are all here.

I am very fortunate in that one of my staff members worked for George Hees for some time. When he retired in 1988 I was able to hire her when I first came here in 1989. I spoke with her on the phone this morning for a short while: "Jenny, what do you remember about George Hees?" She said: "He was sure good to work for". A personal testimonial like that is worth a million dollars. She said he was charming and that everybody knew him as George. If he was on the street in Northumberland in his home area people would walk up to him and say: "Hi, George. How are you?" He was theirs. They did not address him very formally because he was just one of them. They appreciated him as George.

He retired in 1988 but left an amazing legacy, serving as a senior minister. One thing I was really impressed with was that he was very frugal. He did not think it was appropriate to just ring up taxpayer dollars for all kinds of things.

One example is that when he moved into one office the carpet was fairly well worn. He said: "We do not have the money right now to replace this carpet". So there it stayed. It got older and more and more frayed. Finally when the day came to replace the carpet and the workers came to clear the old carpet out, they thought it should go to the museum because it looked that old and would be a great piece for the museum.

That philosophy of serving people was the essence of George Hees. He never forgot why he was here and what he was fighting for. Although he is no longer with us, I am sure his legacy will live on in the House and in minds and hearts of the Canadian people.

On behalf of the Reform Party, we send our condolences to his family and say a personal thank you, George, for all you did for us.

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. If the RCMP is investigating, let it investigate. Let us not talk about backroom deals and out of court settlements. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I will tell the House what else an out of court settlement would be. It would be a slap in the face to millions of Canadians who would be forking out millions of dollars to pay this off because of the minister's incompetence.

I want the minister to promise to me and to Canadians right here and right now that as soon as he signs this out of court settlement with Brian Mulroney the next thing he will do is sign his own resignation. Will he or will he not?

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has now admitted his lawyers are discussing a possible out of court settlement with Brian Mulroney over the Airbus affair. He has even said that such a settlement "would be very desirable".

I will tell the House what a settlement with Brian Mulroney would be. It would be an admission that the justice department has botched its investigation. It would be an admission that it had no evidence in the first place and tried to hide this fact from the Canadian people from the outset.

If the justice minister says his department is acting responsibly every step of the way, will he promise here and now not to do a closed door deal with Brian Mulroney?

[Justice, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, regarding ministerial accountability, it may be that the minister does not know of any concrete proposal on the table, but regarding what we hear on the news, there certainly are some questions about it.

I understand the minister is busy with the Young Offenders Act, section 745 and the Airbus deal, but I am going to ask him again.

Contrary to what he is saying, that he knows there is no concrete proposal on the table, the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay the bill on this regardless of what the price is. I ask the minister one more time: Where is the cash going to come from when any settlement is ever arranged? Who is going to pay for the incompetence if there are federal bureaucrats involved and the justice minister's poor judgment on this? When is he going to accept ministerial responsibility?