Deborah Grey

[The Constitution, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we wanted the referendum to be over and done with through a strong no vote. It did not happen because of who was in charge over there.

Let me remind the Prime Minister that on October 25, in a speech broadcast to the entire nation, he said:

All governments, federal and provincial, must respond to the desire of Canadians everywhere for greater decentralization.

That was a promise, not just to Quebecers, but to all Canadians. Since the referendum, however, the government has done nothing but backpedal on its promises.

When will the Prime Minister keep his promise to introduce concrete measures to transfer many powers to the provinces, which is their normal jurisdiction anyway?

[The Constitution, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's premier in waiting has said that he will not hold another referendum until 1997. That seems to be good news for this do nothing government.

A recent poll found that if a Quebec referendum were held today the yes side would win with almost 55 per cent. This is an outright condemnation of the Liberals' post-referendum strategy. What is more, 55 per cent of Quebecers reject the symbolic changes which the Prime Minister is offering, while a strong majority, as high as 85 per cent, want to see a transfer of powers to the provinces.

Since constitutional change is not an option and since Quebecers will reject the symbolic changes, when will the Prime Minister introduce concrete measures to transfer real power to the provinces?

[Beaver River, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week I drove 3,300 kilometres around Beaver River conducting my fall tour. I talked to hundreds of people at town hall meetings, school classrooms and in my office.

People are concerned about the government's bills on MP pensions, employment equity, gun control and so on. The thing they asked more questions about rather than anything else was the referendum. Everybody in the meeting asked now what.

This morning we find out that now what means another referendum. People at home recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec with regard to language, culture and civil law. Because the term distinct society is undefined they think it would be a lawyer's delight to see it enshrined in the Constitution as it would be wide open to

interpretation. I even had a Liberal supporter ask me what part of no the Liberals did not understand in the Charlottetown accord.

We must move forward to the new Canada, not backward to failed ideas and plans. They did not work. They are not working and will not work. Let us scrap the unity committee of politicians and let the people speak.

[Air Canada, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is more at stake here than some sort of hilarity from the solicitor general. Things have been bad enough in that department already these past couple of weeks. If anyone is being facetious here it is he.

The Canadian people deserve better from the Liberal government. What we have here are all the makings of a Stevie Cameron sequel. In writing about this Prime Minister's approach to governing, she might entitle that sequel "I am not aware of anything".

The members opposite were aware of the Airbus scandal for five years when they were in opposition and have been aware of it for the two years they have been in government.

Will the government commit to making public, totally public at the earliest possible date, every relevant aspect of this smelly Airbus deal?

[Air Canada, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I support the RCMP, especially in its guarding of 24 Sussex, part of its job.

Not all governments have been asleep at the switch in this scandal. According to the federal government and in contrast to it the American embassy has been hard at work, having already accumulated a fat file on this subject which includes actual names, timelines and Swiss bank account numbers.

It seems to me the Minister of Justice could save Canadian taxpayers a great deal of time and money by simply walking across Wellington Street and asking the Americans for a photocopy of their file.

In order to help get to the bottom of this matter will the Minister of Justice make a formal request to have the American government share all relevant information and material it has gathered on the Airbus deal?

[Air Canada, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Airbus scandal provides yet another example of what happens when a government buries its head in the sand. The most outrageous aspect of this Airbus scandal is not Brian Mulroney's $50 million lawsuit, nor is it the righteous indignation coming from his Sherbrooke sidekick.

The most outrageous aspect of this entire thing is that it took articles in a Swiss newspaper and a German magazine to convince this government to take action. None of these are new allegations. The RCMP was investigating this matter back in 1989. Paul Palango was naming names in 1994 and the CBC was uncovering new and damaging evidence as recently as this March.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why did it take the work of a German newspaper to get this government to act on the Airbus scandal?

[Class Of 1965, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too should like to pay tribute to these two long serving members. I think after having won two elections I am a veteran at this but in fact I am just a kid. The hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce have had incredible careers here.

With respect to the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, in the 30 years he has served there has often been a cold and cynical environment in this place, sad to say, but he has contributed immeasurably to making members of the House remember that their purpose in Ottawa is to serve those who elected them back home. There are no votes to gain in the Chamber.

While in government he served as acting speaker of the House and parliamentary secretary to the ministers of national defence and energy, mines and resources. In opposition he served as official opposition critic for national defence, financial management and regional development. Yet, when asked about his great achievements as a member of this place, the hon. member often mentions funding for the Ottawa Heart Institute.

He has found an enviable role in Parliament that does not include the high and mighty stature of being a minister. Funding for the Ottawa Heart Institute was very important to him. I remember the time he went in for heart surgery. We were grateful that our prayers were answered and he was able to return here. We are glad he is in good health and feeling well enough to be able to keep up a rigorous schedule.

Regarding the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, again he is somebody who has served here for 30 years. I was 13 years old when these two men were elected. It gives me a sense of history. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has also had a wide and varied career. He has served in a variety of capacities as Solicitor General, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The titles go on and on. They show the wide diversity of knowledge they have gained from this place.

He has worked in many areas, but it is amazing that he has demonstrated his tenacious commitment to the convictions and principles on which he has staked his political career, I am sure more than once. In a firm commitment to the principles in which he believes and on which he has been re-elected on eight successive occasions, which truly distinguishes the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, his unwavering belief in the principles in which he believes so firmly and for which he stands, has seen him stand to be counted many times, including a recent personal and difficult decision for him to oppose his own party.

The hallmark of that successful politician, someone who is willing to stand to be counted, is that he is able to balance the realities of the party system with the wishes of his constituents while remaining true to his own beliefs. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce retains the respect and support of his con-

stituents. I know my party especially has appreciated him as chairman of the justice committee on which he served.

I wish both gentlemen well and a happy anniversary. I wish God's richest blessing on them as they continue in this place.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on the same night this tragedy happened, in Israel the security force resigned; its members have either been thrown out or they have resigned.

Why can that not happen here when our Prime Minister's life was in great danger that night? Why was the intruder not spotted? Why did it take seven minutes for the RCMP to respond? Why did the RCMP secure the perimeter of the place without securing the Prime Minister?

More amazingly, none of the three senior officers who are on emergency standby duty 24 hours a day with cell telephones answered when Mrs. Chrétien made the emergency call. They were not available. They did not answer their phones even though they were on 24-hour standby emergency duty.

Will these senior officers be held accountable? Can the solicitor general assure the House, without the report having even been tabled, that junior officers will not take the fall for their superiors?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an understatement to say that there was a massive breakdown in security at 24 Sussex over the weekend. With every passing day the revelations get more bizarre and Canadians are rightly concerned and angered.

We have just learned that the Mounties guarding 24 Sussex that night were inexperienced, having received only a couple of months' training. At least one of them had been called from the RCMP musical ride.

I ask the Solicitor General of Canada this. What sort of training did these officers receive and who was responsible for putting these people in the position of gatekeepers at 24 Sussex?

[The Late Yitzhak Rabin, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader and our party I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzahk Rabin.

Rabin earned his reputation with Israelis as a soldier and then as a politician. His first hand knowledge of the military and his deep commitment to preserving Israel's security, first through arms and later through peace, made him undeniably one of the world's greatest statesmen.

It is well known that Mr. Rabin earned his credibility on the battlefield. However, Rabin's greatest honour and truest victory came through his pursuit of a lasting peace with his former enemies.

He sought peace not through fear but through courage, seeing it as the only hope for the future. He understood that true peace is not the absence of all differences, but genuine goodwill and the putting aside of those differences for the common good. Of the necessity for peace, Rabin said: "We should not let the land flowing with milk and honey become the land flowing with blood and tears".

Yitzahk Rabin truly believed that "the majority of people want peace and are ready to take a chance for peace". He himself took that chance and paid recently with his life.

Just six weeks ago, King Hussein of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, Chairman Arafat, and Prime Minister Rabin signed a peace agreement on the White House lawn. In words that seem almost prophetic today, Prime Minister Rabin said: "Only poets have dreamt of this moment, and to our great pain soldier and civilian went to their deaths to make this moment possible".

He was soldier and civilian both, as well as one of Israel's greatest leaders. We hope and pray that his death, although tragic and untimely, will leave a legacy for lasting Middle East peace, for which he sought so valiantly.

Our sympathy and prayers are with Mrs. Rabin and her family. Shalom, Prime Minister Rabin.