Deborah Grey

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the press release says that the Canadian coat of arms proposed by Bruce Hicks of the press gallery was approved by Queen Elizabeth on July 12, 1994, not 1987.

The point is that this issue has not even come before Parliament; it has not even come before the people of Canada.

My question is about symbols. These symbols do not belong to the Liberal government; they belong to the people of the country. If this is real, why has Parliament not even discussed it?

We have seen closure on the distinct society motion. We have seen closure on constitutional vetoes. Why are we now seeing closure on this issue?

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada has pronounced in a press release:

Canada has a new coat of arms which will be distributed this week to MPs and schools across the country-The new coat of arms will appear on all money, passports, government buildings and rank badges in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a French Canadian, I always thought the coat of arms we had been using was too closely associated with the British. These new arms are an important change in our evolution as a country.

You bet they are, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage if this is for real. If so, why did the Canadian public not even have a say on it?

[Distinct Society Motion, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from sea to sea do not like the distinct society motion. A recent poll shows that only 37 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec support it.

Albertans rejected this notion in the Charlottetown accord. They reject any concept that promotes the inequality of citizens or provinces or gives special status to any province.

The arrogance shown by the Liberal Party during the referendum turned to panic and confusion when status quo federalism was rejected by nearly 50 per cent of Quebecers. The result is this ill-conceived motion. Surely the members opposite can see that this motion is ill-advised and it will further embitter and fracture this nation.

Why are the Liberal members from Alberta mute on this issue? Why do they not speak out on behalf of Albertans? Can they not persuade their colleagues and their leader of the miscalculation of this motion? Too much is at stake to be silent. Canadians should debate this issue fully and not get closed off in the House of Commons. No, nervous nellies in the government invoked closure and are ramming it through. They seem proud of it.

The people will speak. If they do not get a chance to speak now, they will speak later in Edmonton East at the ballot box in 1997.

[Unemployment Insurance, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking math, and I suspect it was not a prerequisite when the Minister of Human Resources Development got his job.

My strength is not math either, but I can figure out this much mathematically. According to his own department, a $900 million reduction in UI premiums creates 25,000 full jobs. That is one job for every $36,000 in reductions. Using those same figures, the minister's $1.2 billion tax grab would kill close to 34,000 jobs in this country.

Will the minister confirm that this tax grab on part time workers is a job killer? And if he does not agree with our figures, maybe he could provide the House with his department's own research in this area.

[Unemployment Insurance, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced that his five-cent reduction in UI premiums on $100 of insurable earnings would create 24,000 full time jobs in Canada. More money in Canadians' pockets equals more jobs. It is as simple as that.

We have to wonder why then the Minister of Human Resources Development is taking a seven per cent tax bite out of the pay cheques of part time workers in this country.

If a token UI premium reduction creates 25,000 full time jobs, how many jobs will be lost when the government takes $1.2 billion out of the pockets of part time workers?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted no on Charlottetown and I suspect if the government had the courage to ask them to vote again they would again vote no, loudly and clearly.

This government talks about equality but it learned absolutely nothing from Meech Lake and Charlottetown. If the national unity package is to have any hope of succeeding, it must win the support of Canadians. It has to be by Canadians. It needs to be for all of them and it must receive popular ratification.

Canadians are sick and tired of being used as the Liberal government's personal political pawns. They want the first say and they want the final say when it comes to these things. Will the government commit to holding a national binding referendum on any constitutional change so that the Canadian people, not provincial governments and federal politicians, have the final say as they were allowed to do with Charlottetown in 1992?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister pleaded with Canadians to support his Quebec package of Mulroney leftovers: distinct society and constitutional veto. However the government does not have the courage to let those very same Canadians vote directly on the package. Instead of trusting Canadians, the Prime Minister has decided to ram the proposals through Parliament.

Because the government will not trust the Canadian people with the country's future, will it at the very least call off the Liberal whip and allow a free vote on the Prime Minister's Quebec package?

[Quebec, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will be begging the question, why in the world did he bring this up yesterday afternoon? Why do we not get on with job creation? Let us do it.

The Prime Minister's style is often likened to that of Louis St. Laurent but I think Louis XIV maybe is more like it. The Prime Minister did not consult with Canadians. He did not consult with the premiers. He did not even properly consult with his own caucus who are watching this show today before announcing the Quebec package. They know it and we know it. They have been talking to us. What is worse is that the government does not trust the Canadian people to give them the final word on these measures.

Will the government commit today to a free vote in the House of Commons on its proposals? Will it then give the Canadian people a direct and final say on the Quebec package?

[Quebec, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians buried the Charlottetown accord six feet under, I thought I had seen the last of the elitist backroom boys, but I was wrong. The Liberals have even one upped the Tories.

The sum total of this Prime Minister's consultation process was this: an interim report from the national unity dream team; a couple of heart to hearts with the dynamic duo of Pelletier and Goldenberg; a few quick phone calls to the premiers; and a last minute briefing of his very own caucus.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why were the Canadian people, the people and not the governments, left out of the process again? Will the people have a direct say on his government's Quebec package?

[The Constitution, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have been and will continue to fight for a new Canada, not this old rehash, out of date Canada that they keeping talking about.

I seem to hear from the other side decentralization, if necessary, but not necessarily decentralization. Mackenzie King's dog would have been proud of that line. He could not have said it any better.

Canadians inside and outside of Quebec want real change. They do not want just cosmetic changes and the ivory tower thinking that we are going to hear on Wednesday from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Is that it? Is that all this bankrupt Liberal government has to offer, recycled centralist policies again and again and botched unity strategies? Does the government have any clue whatsoever, or is the Prime Minister just making it up as he goes along?