Deborah Grey

[National Unity, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister commits to having them involved in every stage of the process, it means that the government can do nothing less than have a national, binding referendum at the end once it gets going.

I find this unbelievable. She talks about economic security. It is good to talk about but the track record of the government is such that it is not going to happen. Bringing people together is a great idea, except the Deputy Prime Minister said just the other day that we need to go back to the spirit of '67 and live it again.

The year 1967 was a wonderful year but we are in 1996. We are moving toward a new century. Let us move forward, not backward. Top down first ministers' conferences, distinct society status, special status and vetoes simply will not fly any more.

Why does the government insist on recycling the same Mulroney policies and problems for national unity, for the economy, for Katimavik-2 and all these wonderful things? When Canadians

rejected them, they thought once and for all in the Charlottetown accord, why the resurrection of these policies that did not work?

[National Unity, February 28th, 1996]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. That is the point. Canadians want economic changes. They want to feel safer about it. They want to know that there is going to be a country here once the economy gets better. They want that security.

They saw no tax relief, no tax reform in the speech from the throne yesterday. They are demanding a real say in the future of the country. They have ideas that are worth listening to on the economy, on areas of personal security and safety and on areas of national unity which seem to take up a fair bit of the throne speech.

Is the government willing to bring Canadians in at the beginning of the unity process? Is it willing to listen to them truly? At the hind end of it, once all the plans are on the table, will the government say that it is giving the people the ultimate opportunity to say yes or no? At the end are these things going to make Canadians feel more secure? Will she commit to that, yes or no?

[National Unity, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech the government promised that "Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".

That is a big step forward for a government which shut out and shut up Canadians, even its own backbenchers, during the referendum campaign last fall.

Like most things concerning national unity, there is a great deal of confusion in cabinet and in the whole caucus over what this strategy actually is, and what giving Canadians a say really means.

My question is for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wherever he is. Will Canadians have a real say in the future of their country in a national, country-wide, binding referendum? Yes or no?

[Quebec Referendum, December 13th, 1995]

The people of B.C., not the government.

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that we are not to worry about it. The country is worried sick about the obsession the government has had week after week after week after the referendum. The point is we want to get on with jobs. The point is we want to get on with looking after the economy, but this Prime Minister has forced the House to be obsessed with this problem.

Plain and simple, why does the Prime Minister not cut his national unity losses, go back to the drawing board and consult Canadians in a nationwide referendum? If he has the faith in the Canadian people, why will he not consult with Canadians and the premiers, not just some of these people here?

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, even the Quebec Liberals oppose any use of federal power to disallow a future referendum if the question is unclear. The Quebec Liberals said that. Today, Quebec Liberal constitutional critic Jean Marc Fournier said: "The Prime Minister should have more confidence in the good judgment of the people of Quebec".

The Prime Minister now says that the question will be clear. How can he guarantee that the question will be clear? What powers is he prepared to use?

[The Constitution, December 11th, 1995]

Hallowe'en.

[The Constitution, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if that is its focus, why did it get us into this mess for the last two months? Why has it not talked about jobs?

Nobody asked for this business to come through the House like this. What part of consultation does the Prime Minister not understand? It is not that difficult. Consultation is when you ask ordinary Canadians, business people, community leaders and politicians for their advice and listen to what they have to say; that is before the decision is made, not after, as the government is doing.

Will the government take the advice of the Reform leader, step aside and listen to the national unity action plan developed by a reconfederation conference of premiers, business and community leaders and ordinary Canadians, not this stuffy place here that thinks it knows all the answers?

[The Constitution, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, distinct society status for the unity of the country takes more than a vote in this place. It takes the public will and support of the people from sea to sea.

The phrase "begin damage control" seems to be the only advice coming out of the Prime Minister's office these days: a last minute veto thrown to B.C. as opposition to the Quebec package began to mount, and now a token town hall public relations exercise on CBC to try to breath life into a unity strategy that is dead on arrival. The Prime Minister is out of touch, out of control and out of ideas.

If the government is truly serious about public consultation and if it really plans to listen to Canadians on CBC, will it abandon all attempts to ram this Quebec package through the House of Commons and submit it to a full debate before Parliament and Canadians right across the country?

[The Constitution, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians gave Brian Mulroney his walking papers I thought I had seen the last of his top down constitutional change, but I was wrong.

What the current Prime Minister has done is worse than anything Mulroney ever did. The Prime Minister scribbled down constitutional changes on the back of a napkin without consulting Canadians, without consulting the premiers, without even consulting his caucus. Now he has resorted to refusing debate in this place and shutting Canadians out of the process completely. Even Brian Mulroney was more of a democrat than this Prime Minister.

Why is the government breaking its 1993 election promise in the red book of open government and greater public consultation?