Deborah Grey

[Security Of Prime Minister, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, platitudes and investigations and all these kinds of things are one thing, but Canadians are demanding more. They are demanding action, not just reports and tabling reports and all that. They do not feel safe in their own homes. Now they find out that their Prime Minister is not safe in his.

How can the solicitor general assure Canadians that this government has taken immediate steps so that this will never happen again? Will he commit today to tabling the report that is brought forward so that all Canadians can look at it?

[Security Of Prime Minister, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says it was an unfortunate incident. In fact it was terrifying. I have my sympathies for Mrs. Chrétien, who went to the door and found such a frightening thing. It is not acceptable that it just be deemed unfortunate, especially on the heels of the tragic murder on that same day of the Israeli Prime Minister.

It took the RCMP almost 10 minutes to respond. If Mrs. Chrétien had called the fire department, their response time would have been three and a half minutes. Why did it take so long?

[Security Of Prime Minister, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians were shocked to hear of the break-in at 24 Sussex Drive on Saturday night.

The Prime Minister deserves to be protected. He must be protected, especially in his own home. The more Canadians learn about this, the more outraged they are at this breach of security.

I ask the Solicitor General of Canada, where in the world did our security system go wrong on Saturday night?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Giving, not sharing.

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that Reformers from across the country were at the Montreal rally, the people, not the politicians speaking out.

It was evident from the results of the Charlottetown accord that Canadians do not want to see distinct society status or constitution-

al vetoes brought in. They want to see the federal government decentralizing power, in fact loosening the grip and the stranglehold it has on powers. The west wants it, Ontario wants it, and Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson wants it.

When will the Deputy Prime Minister start living up to this promise of changing the way the federation operates and begin the actual transfer of powers to the provinces?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister told Canadians that he understood full well their frustration at having to sit on the sidelines during the referendum and said that he would not let it happen again.

However, in question period yesterday the Prime Minister flatly rejected the idea of consulting Canadians directly through constituent assemblies.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. If not through referendum, if not through constituent assemblies, then how does she plan to consult Canadians on the future of their country?

[National Unity, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Prime Minister that if he comes to my riding he will know that they and I voted no on the Charlottetown accord. It was dead then and it is dead now. No distinct society status ever more.

All Canadians must be involved if we hope to avoid defeat in another Quebec referendum. It is an idea that can work. It is an idea that has support from the provincial premiers, such as Newfoundland's Clyde Wells.

Is the Prime Minister willing to hold citizens assemblies across this country, or is he determined to resurrect Meech Lake and Charlottetown one more time?

[National Unity, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one sure thing that came out of this referendum is that Canadians from every province are demanding change. They want more of a say in the decision making process that will determine the future of their country. They have given up and they are sick to death of the politicians and their deal making, trying to resurrect Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

Will the Prime Minister guarantee Canadians that they will be involved in any decision that affects the future of their country?

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

With that guarantee then, Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister threatening to open up the Constitution again? There is no support for it across the country.

He has said during this debate: "We will make the changes that are needed". Whatever that code means, whatever the changes include, could the Prime Minister guarantee to us that there will be no special status for anybody? Just say no.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been proven that Canadians from sea to sea want absolute equality.

In the Confederation of tomorrow what guarantee could the Prime Minister give Canadians that every province and every individual will be treated equally?